WikiLeaks explodes the last liberal justification for Iraq

One frequent justification liberal apologists give for the illegal invasion of Iraq is that for all its failings, at least it removed Saddam Hussein. WikiLeaks latest release has dealt a major blow to this tepid liberal justification for the crippling of an entire nation. The on-going torture by Iraqi Security Forces that the documents reveal, prove that the sadistic spirit of terror that Saddam Hussein unleashed is still very much alive and well.

Much is being made of the fact that American forces knowingly stood aside and knowing let Iraqi Security Forces torture their fellow Iraqis. However, as Al Jazeera point out, while this is morally reprehensible, legally American forces did nothing wrong:

International law did not require the US to investigate these allegations of Iraqi-on-Iraqi detainee abuse, because all of them were reported after June 30, 2004 – when Iraq once again became a “sovereign country”, according to the United Nations resolution 1546. The United States no longer directly controlled Iraq’s security services, and thus, it was no longer legally obligated to police them.

In reality, this caveat is of little relevance either. As is amply clear throughout history, the US Government has little concern for international law. However, even if American forces had been legally bound to intervene in Iraqi-on-Iraqi torture, it should have been no surprise if they hadn’t since the US Military has routinely used torture to “interrogate” detainees in Guantanamo Bay. The fact that they stood by – whether legally or immorally – should be no real surprise.

The biggest scandal here is that one of the supposed main aims of the illegal invasion of Iraq – to remove the tyranny of Saddam Hussein – has merely removed the man, not the brutality of the regime. Perhaps even more scandalous, is that the invasion has left Iraq in an even more desperate state than before troops arrived. One of the most disturbing facts to have emerged prior to WikiLeaks latest release is that due to the invasion, Iraq City now has a higher cancer rate than Hiroshima. It’s a damning indictment of the invasion that many Iraqis feel compelled into the perverse situation of longing for a return to life under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein than face the one they now have in the aftermath of the US led invasion and occupation.

If the prisoners were originally taken by U.S. forces and then handed over to Iraqi security, which I think is often the case, then international law is clear: the U.S. forces have a responsibility to ensure that such transfers will not lead to torture of the transferees, and to halt such transfers even upon suspicion of torture.

This is a subject much discussed here right now because of Canada’s (shameful) history in Afghanistan, and there is frantic cover-up going on precisely because the law is so clear.

As you say, though, admin: many Americans have been taught to think of international law as a suspect thing, so the impact there is unpredictable.

Interesting to note that the NY Times emphasizes the Iran connections in this history in a way that none of the other primary publishers has.

Since selected media such as Al Jazeera were given the Iraq War Logs many weeks before they were released, I would assume they have double checked that this is the case legally. Al Jazeera say that they have been analyzing the WikiLeaks War Logs for 10 weeks along with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London which should surely have given them enough time to verify exactly what the law is on this issue.

As regards Al Jazeera’s coverage in general though, they did break WikiLeaks media embargo by 30 minutes which was a bit naughty. They’ve also been selling it in a way which I think is a little bit inappropriate. One Al Jazeera trailer for the Iraq War Logs claimed something along the lines that its coverage was “better than our competitors” as if it was some kind of competition or selling some kind of washing powder. The leaks shouldn’t be used as a tool in some kind of ratings war – they should be about bringing the truth out. Of course, I understand that they are a commercial news organisation but they way they broke the embargo and the way they’ve sold it, sometimes seems a bit distasteful.

I’ve just checked the New York Times coverage and you’re right. I notice the front page reads “A trove of nearly 400,000 secret field reports from Iraq, obtained by the group WikiLeaks, sheds new light on such issues as civilian deaths, detainee abuse and the involvement of Iran.” It’s entirely natural that the liberal corporate media in America should try and get some kind of angle on this. It is their duty to the corporate community to ensure that within the next few years, the liberal American public are baying for Iranian blood and begging for an invasion.

At the time it certainly appeared to be the American position that once the “constitution” was ratified, “we” (I am an American) were no longer “legally” an occupying force — y’know responsible for the health, safety and welfare of the Iraqi civilian population under Geneva Conventions, irrc — responsibilities we had conspiciously and grossly failing to meet.

As a signatory to various “conventions,” etc. — I suspect in fact — it may not be that simple … but hey, whaever …

1. No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Speaking on the BBC’s Today programme, Nowak, who has spent years investigating allegations of US participation in extraordinary rendition and the abuse of detainees held by coalition forces, said the Obama administration had a legal and moral obligation to fully investigate credible claims of US forces’ complicity in torture.

A failure to investigate, Nowak suggested, would be a failure of the Obama government to recognise its obligations under international law. He said the principle of “non-refoulement” prohibited states from transferring detainees to other countries that could pose a risk to their personal safety.

Excellent! However, it was a very popular concept here in the United States where, irrc, at the time, the “lack of gratitude” by the Iraqis was also deplored.

There is a rather odd phenomenon I’m seeing in many “Democratic” or “liberal” sites. Very little Wikileaks coverage — none at all in some sites (Open Left, Talking Points Memo, In These Times) or simply repost of AP stories (Salon, Truth Dig) …

It is Saturday but it takes little expertise to link beyond AP wire stories, iykwim.

I fear the Democratic Party faithful have circled their wagons in the face of the midterm elections and decided that discussion of Iraq war crimes and Wikileaks is not-what-we-want-to-talk-about-right-now. There has been delirious (“corrective”)cheerleading wrt election prospects and Obama’s been stumping around making “inspiring” speeches — and all the usual fanboys and fangirls are breathless (this may be — as much as anything — simply a matter of careerism, imho).

Still we’ll see. The NYT has had long-time Baghdad Bureau Chief / Correspondent John Burns author an article on Wikileaks/Julian’s inner “turmoil” — I commented it was “shameful” to use him in this way and my comment was rejected. I was genuinely looking foward to Burn’s perspective (and pose –since he was living and reporting from there for years).

Well, up here in the Great White North, we’ve known for a while that the law must be there because our craven politicians have been trying to hide from it for so long.

The things we have done, that have been done in our name. I grew up inspired by Nuremberg and the edifice of international law constructed upon it. The last decade has brought me close to despair. We cannot lose those principles; we simply cannot.

The NYT added a comments thread to Burn’s article (not there when I posted to the Iraq War Logs comment thread). Most comments when I looked were supportive of Assange and pissy at the NYT.

The CNN walkout was absolutely the right thing to do — he was polite and calm (as far as I could detect) — hopefully it will deter the next “interviewer” who ignores repeated polite warnings.

I still find it scandalous the Burns was assigned or volunteered to write something better suited for an intern.

FWIW, I also think Julian is being VERY generous in what he says wrt Daniel. Daniel was uncooperative and insulting — at least. Daniel, John Young and the PGP board guy must know — like Assange or not, approve or not — Assange is trailblazing (at personal risk and cost) in areas they have not entered. Young’s recent “not-like-Wikleaks” post clarified his fairly startling lack of personal involvement, experience, access wrt Wikileak Affair. I think he knows he’s been played in the past… but he just can’t seem to stop “backseat driving.”

International calls for the Obama administration to investigate are “music to my ears” and, fwiw, I don’t mind at all that Maliki is upset. (His “claim” to another term is dubious on many levels — if the leaks open the way for someone else, it may be best. In fledgling democracies, it’s not the first election that’s fraught with peril, it’s the second and thirds, creating foundation/precedents for an orderly transfer of power).

I take it all back wrt Cryptome — went over to see “the latest” — once again — “off his meds?”, “back on the bottle?” — don’t know, don’t care — he’s like the Herbert Lom in the Clouseau/Pink Panther movies. Embarrassing.

@skdadl, Re: Did US forces have a legal obligation to investigate iraqi-on-iraqi torture. Thanks for quoting the UN convention statute and digging-up The Guardian article related to this. It seems as you say that Al Jazeera are simply wrong to claim that American forces had no legal obligation “because the reports on torture were filed after June 30, 2004 when Iraq became a sovereign state”. The bottom line is, the invasion itself was illegal from the start so everything that followed it was illegal. However, on this specific point, as you say, according to the UN Convention, it’s illegal to transfer prisoners to a state (whether its sovereign or not) if knowledge of torture is going on – which the War Logs clearly demonstrate they were. It’s worth highlighting this paragraph of the Guardian article too:

Nowak said the US had an obligation “whenever they expel, extradite or hand over any detainees to the authorities of another state to assess whether or not these individuals are under specific risk of torture. If this assessment is not done, or authorities hand over detainees knowing there is a serious risk of them being subjected to torture, they violate article 3 of the UN convention that precludes torture.”

What do we conclude from this? Are Al Jazeera trying to provide a fig-leaf for US complicity in torture by absolving them of legal responsibility? Or despite having 10 weeks to check their facts before going public with the War Logs, have they simply not done their homework? Incidentally, other than The Guardian article quoted above, I can find no other mainstream news organization discussion this crucial issue of refoulement and whether there is a legal case to answer.

@Susan & whatistheword, exile, It’s no surprise that many sections of the corporate media are trying to deflect attention away from state-corporate crimes in Iraq. They have a duty to defend the corporate interests that own them and take the sting out the War Logs. As for Democrats wanting to shield Obama from having to take any responsibility for an investigation, you’re probably right Susan. As I stressed in the blog post, I’m sure most of them are still maintaining that the illegal invasion was justified because it got rid of Saddam Hussein – even if the War Logs prove that the brutality of his regime is still very much alive and well. This is what happens when you’re subjected to liberal propaganda for too long.

@skdadl, One other thing to add – maybe Al Jazeera are not saying that there’s no legal case to answer, but what they’re saying is that the US can’t be held directly culpable? US forces can however be prosecuted for not investigating the torture but Al Jazeera don’t make this especially clear. Just a thought after some Twitter discussion on the subject.

@admin: I greatly admire the coverage that Al Jazeera has done, so if they’re fuzzy about the law, I can forgive them that a bit. To me, the only fuzziness arises because the U.S. has set a consistent pattern either of defying/ignoring international law (even when they’ve signed and ratified, which makes it U.S. law) or of just making law up to cover the current circs — see, eg, the Shumer-Feinstein amendment to the whistleblower legislation, which would single out WL as excluded from protection, or see the DTA, MCA, etc.

Also, my reading of Nuremberg is that if it can be shown that certain abuses were systemic, authorized by state policy, then it is most important to prosecute the senior state actors. Certainly, if there are individual rogue soldiers committing crimes, they should face criminal prosecution individually, but horrors like Abu Ghraib and Bagram have many of us thinking that prosecuting the grunts is not enough, and not right all on its own.

About the John Burns article in the NYT: Shameful that the paper that not only benefits from WL’s work but was also probably the leading propagandist for the invastion of Iraq would feature that trash as its lead story.

Burns was an embed with U.S. forces when he reported enthusiastically on the invasion and occupation. He is a severely compromised figure. Everyone here who’s read through Nicholas’s earlier thread can spot the twisted half-truths and sheer spite in Burns’s article, although it needs a good fisking by anyone who can. Glenn Greenwald at Salon has done a good job here, saying that the media of this generation are doing the work of the Ehrlichmans and the “plumbers” of the Nixon administration:

@skdadl, Your long comment is published and online. Did you not see it immediately for some reason? It wasn’t held in moderation or spam so you should have.

As regards being appalled by liberal commentators, the antidote to that is not to expect too much from them. Something like the War Logs genuinely challenges them to hold power accountable but since most of them are hopelessly dedicated to serving the interests of corporate power, they are utterly unable to. Hence the need for WikiLeaks to challenge a completely moribund and complicit liberal media.

@skdadl I agree completely with your assessment of handing prisoners over to torture, as any Canadian now knows, it is illegal in international law. I think possibly Al Jazeera was looking at US law, since they must know that the US has yet to be bothered by anything the UN says.

Australia seems to be providing even more biased and ridiculous coverage than the US, from what I’ve seen. Here The Australian analyzes the war logs and concludes – the US needs to continue occupying Iraq.

The recent reaction from U.S. on Assange’s leaks on Iraq are political in nature.

Although, the reports indicate that U.S troops initiated the assault on Iraqi forces and then the Iraqi’s troops might have killed their own is beyond me. I don’t believe that Iraqi troops were involved in killing their own unless they involved the Shiaites to kill the Sunni group or mercenaries hired from Afghanistan and other insurgents from other countries.

However, there is dubious thought that Assange might have been hired to expose the war leaks to undermine United States in order to create another false flag that might be blamed on the Arabs or Islamic fundies. In other words, Assange might be building a platform to create the war between Iran and Israel deliberately by these leaks.
Is it possible that someone in the Pentagon has leaked the war atrocities and Assange is publishing them in order for further chaos in the world? They now can easily blame the next false flag on the Afghanistanis or Pakistanis or the Muslims to have been angered by the war diaries and created the attack on U.S soil.

If Assange is used for this purpose, then I shall not support Assange’s efforts.

The links that I posted, I hope will not be deleted as I would like you to follow up on why most Americans have jumped to conclusion on the recent war diaries, 9/11 attack, Iraq war, and so on.

Is it possible also that Sweden is in fact going along with Assange and acting out as if they are after him with rape allegation and denial of visa? I hope Assange does not make fool out of us.

My position has changed, because U.S has been taken for a ride by Israel and their great scheme for occupation of the Middle-East. Assange might be part of their propaganda. I would be disappointed if the goal is not for the protection of U.S troops but rather for selfish interest to create more wars in the Middle East.

However, there is dubious thought that Assange might have been hired to expose the war leaks to undermine United States in order to create another false flag that might be blamed on the Arabs or Islamic fundies. In other words, Assange might be building a platform to create the war between Iran and Israel deliberately by these leaks.

That’s pure madness I’m afraid. You might as well implicate Assange in JFK’s assassination and the “faked” moon landings if you’re going to go down that road!

@admin That seems a fairly instant pull of an online article. It concentrated on Iran’s involvement and Iraq torture and came to the conclusion that the US must stay to babysit the infidels. Mostly concentrating on Iran.

Hello, ashasekh. Predictably, I guess, I thought that Greenwald’s two pieces were great. I was actually surprised that Burns would be silly enough to whine in public, which just calls more attention to the drubbing he got, not just from high-profile writers like Greenwald but from many many NYT readers (and many of those early comments were getting votes in the 700s).

Greenwald steered clear of stamping out any of the personality gossip about JA — I guess he thinks that’s the high road, and that’s ok, given the great history he had to deliver otherwise. But most regulars here by now also know how to answer Burns even at the level of the gossip.

Me, I don’t think it’s enough to say that it doesn’t matter whether an individual is being smeared personally — it does matter. Both the big picture and the individual matter all the time, all at the same time. It bothers me that some people think it’s ok to wave JA off personally, even when we know he’s been under unfair attack, because the same thing can be done to anyone else who follows.

As JA himself has said, “No one in this organization gets left hanging out to dry” (or something like that), and that is a principled position that must be maintained, not just for his sake.

It leads to an index of stories – articles and op ed pieces – about Wikileaks/Iraq/Assange. I’m not sure if the one being discussed in this thread is there or not because I’m not sure what that story was. Try the link I’ve posted and, if that doesn’t work – give me more detail on the article in question and I’ll copy and paste it here. I’ll keep reading and trying to find the one that’s talked about here.

THE Wikileaks trove’s revelation of the extent of Iranian involvement in Iraq has shocked experts.

This includes training an operative who kidnapped US troops.

The leaked wartime documents showed the Iraqi government may be unable to provide the security needed for the US to withdraw, analysts said yesterday.

The files include field reports from 2004 through to last year describing Iranian backing of Iraqi Shia militia, and provide detail supporting US officials’ warnings of Iranian interference in Iraq.

A document from December 2006 describes a plan by a Shia militia commander to kidnap US soldiers in Baghdad in late 2006 or early 2007.

For the mission, the commander tapped a subordinate trained by Lebanese Hezbollah operatives in Qom, Iran, under the supervision of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards.

The next month, four US soldiers were abducted and killed, and the subordinate’s fingerprints were found at the scene. The US tracked down and killed the subordinate four months later.

In September 2006, US soldiers “well inside Iraqi territory” were fired on by Iranians after a US soldier shot and killed an Iranian soldier who had aimed a grenade launcher at the platoon.

The platoon had been working with Iraqi troops near the border, searching for “key infiltration routes” into the country, the document said.

Army General George Casey, then the top US military commander in Iraq, said in June 2006 that Iran was providing weapons and training to Shia extremist groups in Iraq, which were attacking US troops and Iraqi security forces.

“We are quite confident that the Iranians, through their covert special operations forces, are providing weapons and training,” General Casey said.

The WikiLeaks documents cite detainee testimony, a captured militant’s diary and discovered weapons caches in demonstrating how Iran provided Iraqi militias with weapons such as rockets and lethal roadside bombs.

The revelations contradict claims by the Obama administration that Iraq was prepared for the US military to leave at the end of next year, said Ilan Berman, vice-president of the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington.

Mr Berman said Iran, which fought an eight-year war with its neighbour in the 1980s, was “working to keep Iraq weak and fragmented.”

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Middle East program director Marina Ottaway said: “This seems to prove a degree of involvement by Iran that many, including myself, I must say, thought had been exaggerated by the administration.”

hello everyone! well, it’s been a busy time 🙂 i have e-mails sent to me from his comment area so i keep up a little bit but hopefully i can participate more. i’ve got a number of reports + observations + strategic thinking for you all:

1- I think the best news for us all is that Julian’s push to get these war logs out on schedule (delaying this release, using the Pentagon’s logic as the rationale, was one demand of the ‘opposition’) served another purpose regarding internal conflicts: they don’t exist anymore. Julian put to rest all speculation about whether WL could still function, still have access to any monies, network infrastructure, etc. A number of notable signs point to this:

a) The press is trying — but failing — to continue smearing Julian. However, he is the hero again, bringing to light war crimes with enough evidence to potentially even bring charges as far up as Donald Rumsfeld. From this POV, getting the logs out was an important strategic goal.

b) Many of the nay-sayers have found themselves in a bind. Birgitta was put between a rock + a hard place when the NYT/Burns article relied heavily on her quotes. She has recently made an official announcement that she is not an acceptable spokesperson for WL, is not qualified to speak on internal affairs and she believes it is morally criminal to focus on inter-personal squabbles instead of the revelations coming out of the war logs. See below for more information.

c) Daniel’s flirtation with quickly throwing up a replacement ‘network’ of wikileaks seems to be swept to the side. I’d bet that even if his will to form competing WL sites, this would be 4 – 6 months out. He’s kept quiet and, therefore, I don’t think he’s a relevant participant or credible threat any more.

d) Seriously, what can people say in defense of the Pentagon? Incredibly, nearly every major media corporation based in the US is trying to find something that works but they are under heavy attack right now by peoples supporting Wikileaks, a very encouraging sign.

All that said, I definitely notice a change in tone from the government and media this time around. And, if the rumors about subsequent releases containing diplomatic cables, we’re just getting started!

The reason this comment board has flourished is that it attracted some of the brightest people following WL. That’s why I’m asking those individuals (you know who you are) to consider coordinating, loosely, in support of WL — independently, without interaction from anyone within the WL group and saying things that Julian cannot say because of his position.

A while ago, I wrote here about a website with tools or collaboration and I believe it is ready to go live so I can provide as soon as I have it (probably the next 6 – 8 hours).

In the meantime, and I would love to hear any other suggestions, but here are some items I’ve noticed:

1- One of the worst offenders during this past leak event was the NYT Burns article. After blasting back at ggreenwald, Burns probably figured they could field any question b/c none of them would be more difficult than ggreenwald. So, they opened up one of those ‘ask the reporters’ features for their storu and, predictably, got relevant but easy-to-spin questions.

At least, that was until good old Manuel Piñeiro published some quotes he got from Birgitta Jónsdóttir. The statements directly accuse Ravi Somaiya (who has byline credit on the hit piece story) of manipulating + taking her quotes out of context. This is a serious offense that can easily lead to a reporter being fired.

Note this is different than the story comments. The more pressure is applied, the better our chance of setting a precedent for journalists who want to cut corners and focus on character assassination of Julian.

2- For some reason, perhaps the regional left’s vocal support of WL, the Spanish-language Latin American media (always extremely reactionary, many founded during a military dictatorship and all of them blatantly supporting the oligarch class). An all-volunteer translation group has formed on facebook — Wikileaks Portavoz — and definitely needs additional translators.

If you don’t know another language well enough, please friend/like/participate on the page to help us get it going.

3- When the collaboration website begins, I’ll post the URL and hopefully everyone will ‘like’ the page on FB, share it with tie friends, participate in all the different projects that are planned for the site … the goal being to get traffic flowing into the website so it becomes useful + relevant.

There will be an area on the site for brainstorming ideas like this that we can do without the official support of WL.

Finally, you all might have seen this by now on Democracy Now or the al-Jazeera documentary but the US has a positive obligation to intervene and stop any torture that they witness, not just write up a report. There’s an amazing clip in which a general tells a reporter this during a press briefing and Rumsfeld interrupts him to say that the soldiers only have an obligation to -report- torture. This is 100% wrong under international law.

The CPA (Coaliton Provisional Authority) was 100% responsible for all torture being committed by any US or coalition or Iraqi forces because they were undoubtedly ‘in charge’ of iraq during this period. Transferring any prisoner to known torturers is also illegal.

Dont get too excited, though. See Nicaragua v. United States ruling, if you don’t already know about this case.

Anyway, I just wanted to give some ideas about how we can help and definitely interested in hearing new ideas.

Hi Eduardro, Julian Assange suggested in his interview at the Frontline Club for grassroot “Friends of WikiLeaks” to form to support the endeavour. It is a good suggestion and is your idea is in response to that?

…and Manuel Piñeiro (The NYT commenter) died in 1998.
So why do these ghosts want this blog to march with them? Why would they think these individuals might want to follow them? And why the repeated requests to give Sr Rodriguez personal email/facebook details?

A little openness and honesty Rodriguez and less of the cloak and dagger, please. My interest here is only to see a glimmer of reality through the misty press spinnage. And I don’t march or salute.

Well. That is fairly chilling. Thanks very much, tomi, for tracking down that allusion. We should all remember to do that kind of checking.

Not just neocons, I suspect, Sidd Reader. Intel people from the U.S. and elsewhere aren’t necessarily even that principled or political — they are running on what Hannah Arendt called the banality of evil, just doing their jobs, following orders, one of which appears to be trolling us.

@tomi01uk Sidd reader and exile : You guys are awesome – good old wikipedia! Unfortunately, intelligence or sophistication is not really required to do the “intelligence” job … see public response to “rape” charges.

Every cloud has a silver lining, at least because of those women in Sweden, Julian can’t be smeared exactly the same way Jack Anderson was: http://ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4958
….also thanks to the Fancier’s Guild 🙂

Damn, it took you all that long to figure out the naming scheme being used over here? I thought at least some of you lived in América.

Anyway, don’t get too excited. As far as I know, Cuban intelligence hasn’t infiltrated your comments board although I have noticed Fidel giving respect to Julian on a number of occasions, which makes senses since Fidel has been taking on the same enemy for the past half-century (whether US/Canadian citizens recognize the context or how is irrelevant).

Before the mob mentality starts posting my IP address + email all over the place, take a deep breath, and think about my suggestion. Note: I actually did not see the ‘Friends of Wikileaks’ suggestion but that is exactly what the website sounds like. I’ll post the URL here ASAP.

@exile: I thought of answering that tweet — although it is important, because I’m pretty sure that Burns and Ravi just lifted the quote they used from Shenon’s article in the Daily Beast, so that needs saying. But maybe she has learned something? Go back and read what she said to Shenon — shocking from a colleague.

Mr. Assange is guilty of one of the worst offenses in American culture: challenging deeply-held beliefs about the benevolence of American foreign policy with facts. It’s no wonder that American media outlets immediately turn the spotlight onto him, and not the actual materials themselves.

Re: The Greenwald piece in Salon. A masterpiece. The parallel he draws between the Nixon witch hunt and the liberal media with hunt of WikiLeaks and Assange is spot on.

Re: The Upshot article on Assange’s rebuttal of Burns NYT smear article. Hilarious. I couldn’t help but laugh when I read this bit:

Burns said he doesn’t “recall ever having been the subject of such absolutely, relentless vituperation” following a story in his 35 years at the Times. He said his email inbox has been full of denunciations from readers and a number of academics at top-tier schools such as Harvard, Yale, and MIT. Some, he said, used “language that I don’t think they would use at their own dinner table.” Such heated reactions to the profile, Burns said, shows “just how embittered the American discourse on these two wars has become.”

Re: The more recent Greenwald rebuttal to Burns’ rebuttal: Also excellent. I skimmed through some of it but the last paragraph says it all:

Think about it, though: if you were John Burns and had this unrepentant pro-war record (or if you were the NYT and were saddled with its war-enabling history), wouldn’t you also be eager — in the face of these WikiLeaks revelations — to urge everyone to look over there at Julian Assange’s personality traits, or what Iran was doing in Iraq, or anything else you could think of to distract from the extraordinary human suffering and mass death you helped unleash?

Thanks for providing those 4 very interesting links and apologies I’ve only just got round to reading and responding to them

skdadl, Re: Burns gossip about Assange’s private life – my feelings too. I wish Burns would spend a few hours reading through the revelations revealed in the comments of the How to smear a hero post to see just how utterly suspicious the allegations are. We both know it wouldn’t change his mind one bit though – he’s got a job to do – defend state-corporate war crimes. As regards whether it matters or not if Assange is smeared, I agree that it does matter because some people will associate lies told about him with the content of the leaks. This is completely ludicrous and I think many people are wise to it but all you can do is stand up and defend him which I think people here and elsewhere are doing in great numbers.

@whatistheword/Olli, Thanks for digging up that article and it does indeed appear to have been pulled from The Australian website. This is the link if Olli has picked the right one:

If it has been pulled I’m not surprised. Suggesting that Iran is the big story from the War Logs and that more troops should be sent to Iraq is beyond a sick joke. Its clear now that media in Assange’s home country have gone into overdrive to discredit him and WikiLeaks. They missed the boat a bit after the first leaks but now that the US has made it clear they are very angry, the Ossie media are trying to appease their US masters.

@eduardo delgado rodriguez, I’m a bit short of time now but are you being accused of being in Cuban intelligence or something by people posting here?

@skdadl, I was a bit surprised by the Birgitta quote in the NYT article although I’m not sure something as clear as what she is saying can be taken that out of context can it?

I think that Birgitta has been backpedaling since Shenon first published her comments in the Daily Beast — in August? — very early on, though, after the “scandal” first broke in Sweden. She said a number of ill-advised things then, some of which led people on the earlier thread to wonder whether she was speaking out of personal resentment. She called JA a typical male-chauvinist Aussie, eg, and on her Facebook page she wrote something passive-aggressive, not mentioning JA, about how we must take rape seriously as a crime. Ahem.

When people reacted to all that, she came up with the “taken out of context” defence, and she’s been doing that ever since, whenever I’ve seen her (infrequent) public comments.

No, I don’t see either how you can claim that a change of context changes the substance of a number of things she has said.

I could believe, though, that neither Burns nor Ravi actually contacted her directly for the NYT piece — they just lifted her words from Shenon’s earlier article. If that’s what they did, then it’s true that they moved words around b/c the quotes aren’t exactly the same, but the message is. It would be great if she’d just tell us whether either NYT journo actually called her — that matters more than her self-pity.

Weren’t you astonished to read Burns say that it took two of them three months to write that think? Some people have no perspective on themselves, y’know? 😉

The Wikileaks mirror sites have been down for several days — at least here in the U.S. (I think they went down around the time they were pulled from the Amazon server – but I can’t be sure). They had been up.

I wanted to look at the Fallujah document around then and discovered I couldn’t get the page that lists the mirrors to come up … went on to do something else but checked back over the next days and it’s still not available — nor is a sort of “backdoor” entry using a link to an article on Child Porn that comes up on the google search for “wikileak mirrors” which I’ve used before, irrc.

This may just be a U.S. phenomenon but there have also been no tweets since 8:30 (20:30) on 10/27.

The Iraq material is amazing … I found a very good data-mining article on FP this morning

[which incidentally gives me my first solid evident -> proof of Mahdi army death squads which I have seen allleged in such general terms I resisted accepting it as “fact” — being rather sympathetic to al-Sadr’s Iraqi nationalism (which actually includes Iraqi Sunnis).]

Gee — Just like Burns was the bureau chief for the NYT … I guess Knickmeyer actually left the office a bit more … and further afield … or ???

It is shocking that John Burns was allowed/assigned to write fluff … but then has been allowed to hide behind ‘outrage’ at that piece to — afaikt — never address the contents of the leaked materials — he was the NYT bureau chief for YEARS … FERCHRISSAKE …

[which incidentally gives me my first solid evident -> proof of Mahdi army death squads which I have seen allleged in such general terms I resisted accepting it as “fact” — being rather sympathetic to al-Sadr’s Iraqi nationalism (which actually includes Iraqi Sunnis).]

Susan, this is something I’m still trying to grasp too. There were times early on when I guess I was running on the logic of “the enemy of / resistance to the imperialists is my friend,” which I know is stupid but is often tempting.

Latterly I’ve sunk back on the thought that we should let the Iraqis sort out their own politics, but since that’s not happening yet, it’s hard to disengage.

Muqtada al Sadr is a truly remarkable man — either he has amazing natural abilities as a leader or he has great advisors — or both. Ali Sistani was so insulting of him — his boorish ways, his lack of education, his bad teeth — but Najaf made him a “made man” not to mention our endless (wrong-headed) demonization of him — at least as of a few months ago Maliki still had an active warrant out for his arrest (when he went to Syria to meet with Allawi) …

He has a couple more years of seminary … I read he was likely going to leave Iran and finish up in Cairo … which could be the beginnings of a trans-Arab popularity. Cairo was the traditional capital of the Arab world which got undermined in part by our demonization of (Moscow friend) Nasser, irrc, and infinitely “special” relationship with the House of Saud (which we virtually created out of nothing) …

My in-depth knowledge of all this stuff is not impressive … I absorb factoids. Juan Cole seems to regard al-Sadr as a murderous thug — but that sort of label seems kind of relative in that neighborhood. iykwim.

Along with Muhammad Naguib, the first President, he led the Egyptian Revolution of 1952 which overthrew the monarchy of Egypt and Sudan, and heralded a new period of modernization, and socialist reform in Egypt together with a profound advancement of pan-Arab nationalism, including a short-lived union with Syria.

Nasser is seen as one of the most important political figures in both modern Arab history, and Developing World politics in the 20th century. Under his leadership, Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal, and came to play a central role in anti-imperialist efforts in the Arab World, and Africa. He was also instrumental in the establishment of the international Non-Aligned Movement. He is well-known for his nationalist policies and version of pan-Arabism, also referred to as Nasserism, which won a great following in the Arab World during the 1950s and 1960s. Although his status as “leader of the Arabs” was severely tarnished by the Israeli victory over the Arab armies in the Six Day War, many in the general Arab populace still view Nasser as a symbol of Arab dignity and freedom.

I am sure there are all sorts of folks scanning the horizon for the next-Nasser … we’ll see.

Susan, yes — I know we’re OT, but the whole Khadr kangaroo-court military-commission process has been appalling, and that jury’s verdict yesterday was shocking even to those of us who knew Khadr couldn’t get a fair trial.

The story’s not over, but this past week has been a hard one for justice, and of course for Omar.

Okay, Assange got the fame for 5 minutes in the U.S. and for rape allegations in Sweden (lots of laugh) and now, what?
He is going to Cuba? Well, he might test the waters of Cuban Premier, Castro!

My analysis on this whole fiasco: Daniel Ellsberg was behind the exposure and used Bradley Manning and Julian Assange. I am not sure how he knows JA. Is he related to JA? Julian Assange was a definite tool for the U.S.

Ellsberg along with CNN/NY Times arranged the wikileak publications or the media support. Assange was quite defensive with smart Larry King who has always been straightforward in the grilling of his guests. I am sure Assange made Ellsberg proud of his remarks. Nonetheless, Assange has committed sexual acts with two women which may not be a rape, but Swedish laws claim otherwise. If someone who is seriously involved in a dangerous mission of exposing the U.S. of war crimes, then he/she may not get involved in an open candid affairs. As a result, this has undermined Assange’s credibility with Larry King. Assange was wrong to say “Larry, shame on you!” Larry King is a type of a man that would clarify the political and personal events, because it made news all over the world. In fact, Assange should feel shameful for being careless when wikileak group was investing on him to do a fine job without blemish of conduct.

However, today, Assange suing the Swedish govt. is a hype. I don’t know what to believe after all. Is it fair to say that something stinks in Sweden, too? I get a feeling that Assange is not being truthful about Swedish Judicial affairs.

OMG Siboni…. this is not my place here to hit out, but equally it is not your place to speculate harshly about Julian Assange when at this point everyone on the blog is seriously concerned for his wellbeing.

I’m shocked actually that after all this time and exposure to vast amounts of information and insights you have gotten here you would try to leverage the old condum routine on us again as well.

I suggest you take a look at one of those things sometime, I usually put them over my head and try to blow up the top to be funny… but does that look like rape to you?

News also broke yesterday that US spies have been spying on Norwegians “taking part in demonstrations” in Oslo. Assange did a presentation for WikiLeaks in Oslo before he got to Stockholm and seems likely he may have also been a target:

I wondered at JA going so public with the question of asylum in Switzerland, but I’m assuming he gets good legal advice about these things. Switzerland has a lot of defences against outside pressure, it strikes me — mainly those banks?

They let Polanski go (and properly, imo). That suggests to me that they aren’t, um, Sweden.

Yes, the ARTE report is excellent. I wish we could get that kind of reporting in NA. Many Canadians could follow the French, although voiceover is irritating whatever your fluency (I guess subtitles are hard, though). But most NAmericans are just not used to working that hard for their TV.

Especially in the U.S., the State Dep’t/Pentagon propaganda is conventional wisdom in the msm, and that’s all that most people ever see or hear: WikiLeaks is dangerous to our troops, no matter how many times that lie is refuted. But you have to be paying attention to know that it’s been refuted and to question the logic of the claim anyway.

Cryptome seems to the origin for the behind-the-paywall story that Harvard students have not been given requested permission to use Wikileaks Iraq Logs as source material.

The leaked data are sure to keep researchers busy for months to come. Besides the number of casualties, the SIGACTS release includes geographic locations of the violence and other information that has not been available until now. But there could be serious challenges to those hoping to publish an analysis, says Gary King, director of the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University. “I have had a couple of students asking [Harvard] for permission to use the previous WikiLeaks data release, and last I heard they still weren’t allowed to touch it.” But others are more optimistic.

[http://cryptome.org/0002/wikileaks-lock.htm]

I thought about e-mailing Juan Cole about any warnings-to-faculty at his university — but didn’t want to put him on the spot, specially since he hasn’t written much of anything based on the IraqLogs either.

[It feels almost as if media outlets are self-censoring in anticipation of expansion of the espionage act or something.]

While appreciating that the material is voluminous, dense and fragmentary at the same time, I’m *still* really surprised by how little orginal “american” analysis I’m seeing, along with a conspicuous absence of a call-to-arms, write your congress critters — Demand an inquiry type of rabble-rousing, organizing.

Jonathan Schell has a new article up in the The Nation: “What we learned from Wikileaks”

Anyone know anyone in academia and/or journalism in the United States who might be able to network to find out just how big a “chill” has been placed on referencing the Iraq War Logs — cough — about data about Iraq (as opposed to the endless discussion of “wikileaks” as “wikileaks”?

What a good idea, Susan. Interesting that you’d hesitate to put even Juan Cole on the spot, but I see your point.

The writer I see most frequently at least arguing for the importance of the war logs is Glenn Greenwald. He doesn’t do the extensive analysis of the docs themselves, but he is fearless in urging people to take them seriously. Amy Goodman would be another such advocate. Maybe we could write to them with your question? They must have extensive academic networks even though they aren’t academics themselves.

The situation at Harvard is shocking. Students have to ask permission to access any reference material? That’s not a university. A basically competent prof can and should be training students to distinguish among kinds of references and their quality, and will also grade for that, but no student should be stopped from going where her nose leads her in the first place.

I’ve posted this on the How To Smear a Hero post although since there are so many comments on it meaning the page takes time to load, I understand if people want to post comments here. Here is the comment again:

“Swedish prosecutors have requested a remand order be issued for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for an alleged rape.

If the court grants the request, it would allow authorities to issue an international arrest warrant for Assange, who is suspected of rape and molestation allegations of two women in Sweden last summer.

“I request the District Court of Stockholm to detain Mr. Assange in his absence, suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. The reason for my request is that we need to interrogate him. So far, we have not been able to meet with him to accomplish the interrogations,” prosecutor Marianne Ny said in a statement.

The suspicions against Assange stem from an alleged rape which took place in August in Enköping in central Sweden , three cases of sexual molestation in Stockholm and Enköping, and one case of illegal coercion in Stockholm.

The remand hearing is set to take place at 2pm on Thursday in the Stockholm District Court.

An arrest warrant was issued for Assange on August 20th, but another prosecutor abruptly withdrew the warrant later in the day.

The rape allegations were dropped a few days later, only to appealed a few days later, leading to a reopening of the rape case by yet another prosecutor.

The 39-year-old whistle blower has since admitted that he had met both women in question, who according to their lawyer are both Swedish and aged between 25 and 35, saying “they were both at my press conference.”

He has since insisted that he has never had non-consensual sex with anyone, and refused to discuss whether he had sexual relations with the women in question, saying it was a “private matter”.

Assange has repeatedly denied committing any crime and has criticised how Swedish prosecutors have handled his case.

“I am very disappointed at the Swedish authorities,” the Australian activist journalist told the Svenska Dagbladet (SvD) newspaper earlier in November.

“I plan to sue, several different lawyers have advised me to sue.”

Assange has said the allegations against him are part of a “smear campaign”
aimed at discrediting his whistleblower WikiLeaks website, which is locked in a row with the Pentagon over the release of secret US documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

US intelligence services “are probably very happy now,” he said in an interview with AFP in September, adding however that “mentioning their involvement is for now only speculation.”

WikiLeaks last month published an unprecedented 400,000 classified US documents on the Iraq war and posted 77,000 secret US files on the Afghan conflict in July.

As for the two women at the centre of the Swedish rape and sexual molestation probe, whose names have not been made public, Assange admitted in the September interview with AFP that he had met them both, but refused to say if he had sex with either of them, calling it “a private matter.”

Two days before the allegations against Assange were made public in August, he had applied for a work and residency permit in Sweden, where some of WikiLeaks’ servers are situated, but his application was turned down on October 18.

Assange moves around a lot, and his whereabouts remained unclear Thursday.

He last spoke publicly in Geneva on November 4, when he said he was considering requesting asylum and basing his website in neutral Switzerland.

WikiLeaks also said last week it had registered its first known legal entity in Iceland — a business that so far has no office or activity.

13.30 Update: Assange lawyer releases response on arrest warrant & sternly criticises Swedish public prosecutors.http://bit.ly/9qQ21b. This is the first time, as far as I am aware, that there has been a statement confirming that unprotected sex took place. Before, there was confusion over what exactly happened with a condom during the sex.

Full statement:

On the morning of 21 August 2010, my client, Julian Assange, read in the Swedish tabloid newspaper Expressen that there was a warrant out for his arrest relating to allegations of “rape” involving two Swedish women.

However, even the substance of the allegations, as revealed to the press through unauthorized disclosures do not constitute what any advanced legal system considers to be rape; as various media outlets have reported “the basis for the rape charge” purely seems to constitute a post-facto dispute over consensual, but unprotected sex days after the event. Both women have declared that they had consensual sexual relations with our client and that they continued to instigate friendly contact well after the alleged incidents. Only after the women became aware of each other’s relationships with Mr. Assange did they make their allegations against him.

The warrant for his arrest was rightly withdrawn within 24 hours by Chief prosecutor Eva Finne, who found that there was no “reason to suspect that he has committed rape.” Yet his name had already been deliberately and unlawfully disclosed to the press by Swedish authorities. The “rape” story was carried around the world and has caused Mr. Assange and his organization irreparable harm.

Eva Finne’s decision to drop the “rape” investigation was reversed after the intervention of a political figure, Claes Borgstrom, who is now acting for the women. The case was given to a specific prosecutor, Marianne Ny.

The only way the accused and his lawyers have been able to discover any substantive information regarding the investigation against him has been through the media Over the last three months, despite numerous demands, neither Mr. Assange, nor his legal counsel has received a single word in writing from the Swedish authorities relating to the allegations; a clear contravention to Article 6 of the European Convention, which states that every accused must “be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him”. The actions by the Swedish authorities constitute a blatant and deliberate disregard for his rights under the Convention.

We are now concerned that prosecutor Marianne Ny intends to apply for an arrest warrant in an effort to have Mr. Assange forcibly taken to Sweden for preliminary questioning. Despite his right to silence, my client has repeatedly offered to be interviewed, first in Sweden, and then in the UK (including at the Swedish Embassy), either in person or by telephone, videoconferencing or email and he has also offered to make a sworn statement on affidavit. All of these offers have been flatly refused by a prosecutor who is abusing her powers by insisting that he return to Sweden at his own expense to be subjected to another media circus that she will orchestrate. Pursuing a warrant in this circumstance is entirely unnecessary and disproportionate. This action is in contravention both of European Conventions and makes a mockery of arrangements between Sweden and the United Kingdom designed to deal with just such situations. This behavior is not a prosecution, but a persecution. Before leaving Sweden Mr. Assange asked to be interviewed by the prosecution on several occasions in relation to the allegations, staying over a month in Stockholm, at considerable expense and despite many engagements elsewhere, in order to clear his name. Eventually the prosecution told his Swedish lawyer Bjorn Hurtig that he was free to leave the country, without interview, which he did.

Our client has always maintained his innocence. The allegations against him are false and without basis. As a result of these false allegations and bizarre legal interpretations our client now has his name and reputation besmirched. Thousands of news articles and 3.6million web pages now contain his name and the word “rape”. Indeed, three out of four webpages that mention Mr. Assange’s name also now mention the word “rape”—a direct result of incompetent and malicious behavior by Swedish government prosecutors. My client is now in the extraordinary position that, despite his innocence, and despite never having been charged, and despite never receiving a single piece of paper about the allegations against him, one in ten Internet references to the word “rape” also include his name. Every day that this flawed investigation continues the damages to his reputation are compounded.

In October 2010 Julian Assange won the Sam Adams Award for Integrity. He has also been awarded the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award and the Economist Index on Censorship Award in 2008. It is important to remember that accolades such as these do come without tremendous hard work.

The expose of the Afghan War Diaries was a moment of media history, orchestrated by Julian Assange. He brought together The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel, three of the world’s most reputable newspapers to collaborate with WikiLeaks on exposing more than 90 000 secret significant action reports by the United States relating to the war in Afghanistan. This involved a huge amount of administration in order to co-ordinate all four media partners’ publishing schedules and a lot of time to carefully construct the levels of trust needed to bring together three major newspapers who were also competitors.

Since 2007 Julian, WikiLeaks and the Sunshine Press have been behind international front page stories that have changed the world. However, every story exposing abuses by powerful organizations, whether they be from New York or Nairobi results in a counter attack. Such the importance and veracity of revelations must be defended. Immediately after the Afghan War Diaries he conducted seventy-six interviews in three days maximizing the impact of the disclosures. It is very important for WikiLeaks to create a global platform with which to reach all corners of the earth. This demonstrates to those who wish to expose wrongdoing and misconduct that there is a way to do so without putting themselves at risk. He remains a messenger who big governments and their agencies can, and constantly do, attack while all the time keeping the source of the information published safe.

Because of the nature of the work performed by WikiLeaks both the organization and Julian Assange are constantly under attack. Their servers are under attack. Their security is under attack and their work resources and finances are under attack. This results is a lot of time-consuming administration and means working through a lot of bureaucratic steps to re-establish the efficient running of an organisation. When finances are frozen, as was the case with Money Brokers Limited in August this year (the WikiLeaks account was closed because of “watchlisting” by the US after publication of the Afghanistan documents) it resulted in many letters back and forth, instructing a legal team to administer the situation and still to date there has been no resolution. In just the last 14 days he has met with more than 9 lawyers (excluding Swedish lawyers) in in defense of WikiLeaks’ publishing activities, agreements and sources. Similarly, Julian Assange is subject to these sorts of attacks on a personal level.

He and WikiLeaks both have been attacked in the media by Leon Panetta, Director of the CIA, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and highest ranking officer in the US and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates not to mention the well recognized media personalities such as Marc A. Thiessen, a former bush administration chief speech writer and currently a Washington Post columnist who wrote “Assange is a non-U.S. citizen operating outside the territory of the United States. This means the government has a wide range of options for dealing with him.” Christian Whiton, a Fox News contributor, said “WikiLeaks should be declared ‘enemy combatants’,” indicating they should be dealt with outside the law and Jonah Goldberg, a conservative syndicated columnist asked “why wasn’t Julian Assange garroted in his hotel room years ago?”

Attacks such as these create an extreme need for security and he must always be conscious and personally vigilant – a task that is both time consuming and mentally exhausting. The major government players such as the CIA and the Pentagon do not stop at just Julian but also target many WikiLeaks volunteers or associates. Two volunteers and an American WikiLeaks spokesperson have been detained and questioned in the United States along with other individuals alleged to be participant to his publishing activities such as Bradley Manning, an alleged source who is being held as a political prisoner in the United States. Mr Manning’s mother’s house in Wales was raided by the FBI together with local police earlier this year.

The result is a constant need for legal and political support and managing this from afar and throughout many continents is no small task. Furthermore Julian Assange does not take these matters lightly having been privy to bad experiences in the past – while working on the extra judicial assassinations taking place in Kenya, two WikiLeaks’ affiliates being assassinated.

Since the false allegations made about him in Sweden this August Julian has also needed to work extremely hard at ensuring the smear campaign launched against him has not affected the WikiLeaks brand. Making many public appearances and conducting interviews is absolutely necessary not to mention maintaining relationships with media partners who are so easily affected by such events.

In spite of the attacks against him, Wikileaks successfully released the Iraq War Logs in late October – a cache of over 400 000 US military intelligence reports relating to the war in Iraq. Due to the false allegations mentioned above the management of this leak was extremely difficult. However, he successfully made new lasting relationships and expanded the media partners to include Al Jazeera, Le Monde, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, SVT and also brought in Public Interest Lawyers and NGOs such as Iraq Body Count. The documents’ release was increased to television as well as print media with two full-length documentaries being commissioned.

Julian Assange also readily offers to speak at many public events; especially those he feels will have a resonating effect on people’s rights and liberties, ideals he holds close to his heart. Recently he presented at the United Nations Universal Periodic Review against the United States in Geneva where he offered up evidence from the Iraq War logs of the human right abuses such as the 109 000 deaths, 185 000 casualties, 66 000 civilian deaths and countless cases of torture conducted by America. The speech he gave lasted over two hours alone and the preparation for such an event is mammoth. During his stay in Geneva the Swiss government was so fearful for his personal security that they offered two International Police and two Swiss Police as his bodyguards for the duration, yet another indication of the severity of the danger he encounters on a daily basis. In late September he spoke in London for Index on Censorship regarding Security and censorship in the age of WikiLeaks.

In the coming months Julian Assange aims to carry on the invaluable work and service that WikiLeaks offers the public. In due course he intends on providing information, as yet publically unknown. He has stifled many illegal attacks and remains victorious on all legal attacks against WikiLeaks.

Enclosed You will find a copy of the documents that I have would like to send to the prosecutor. I have not been able to have the document translated in detail, but I will now tell You the most important things in it.

First of all I comment the ongoing investigation and tell the prosecutor that I have asked her several times that they should hear my client so that we can be aware of the accusations. They have said no to this initially (and by this I mean for several weeks). Furthermore I remind her that I several times have asked her to give me the evidence in the case. She has said no to this also. I then tell her that I have asked my questions informally and in writing and tell her about a formal request that I made 14 of September 2010. This formal request has not yet been formally answered, which I find to be a breach of Swedish law (23:18 Rättegångsbalken). I also tell her that Sweden has not followed art 6:3 of The European Convention of the 4 november 1950, because Julian has not been informed of the accusation in detail and in his own language. Neither has he been informed of the documents in the case in his own language. This is an incorrect behavior.

I then tell her that Julian is indeed willing to participate in a hearing. But I remind her that I asked her in writing (14 of September) if he was free to leave Sweden for doing buissines in other countries and that she called me and said that he was free to leave. This is important because it means that Julian has not left Sweden in trying to escape the Swedish justice. Then I reminds her that Julian and I several times have tried to give them dates when he could come to Sweden and participate in a hearing, for example I spoke to the second prosecutor Erika Leijnefors during week nr 40 and told her that Julian could participate in a hearing the 10 of October (a Sunday) or some day the following week. The prosecutor in charge (Marianne Ny) said no to this. Other times Marianne Ny has said no to our proposals due to that one of her policeofficers were sick or because the time did not suit her. This is also important because it shows that Julian has tried but Marianne Ny has said no. I go on remembering her that Julian has suggested that he could participate over a phone line and from an Australian Embassy. She has said not to this also. Then I tell her that Julian is willing to participate through a videoconference or to make a written statement over the accusation and the questions they may have. This is of utmost importance, since it shows his willingness to participate. I remind her of a ruling from our Highest Court; NJA 2007 s.337, in which the court did not put a man in custody although he was abroad and did not come to Sweden to participate in a hearing. It was not proportional to do such a thing, since he left Sweden rightfully (just like Julian) and thus did not try to escape the Swedish justice, he was willing to participate via phone or in writing and so forth.

In the second last section of the letter I tell the prosecutor that she should think of the damage that Sweden already has done to Julian by letting his name in public. I tell her that I have heard that there is a policeinvestigation going on about the first prosecutor who let Julians name out In public, which shows that it is a serious matter. If the prosecutor now goes forward with a request of Julian being put in custody it is my opinion that the damage could be enormous; whatever the outcome of the trial may be. Therefore I urge her to come back to me with a proposal of when and where we could have this hearing instead of her dragging Julian in to court.

In the last section I tell her that if she proceeds with her plans of a custody trial, I want all documents. This I say because I don not trust them to give me everything.

So Jennifer, this is the main things in my letter. I hope You understand what I am writing. If not, please call me. I will not be able to take Your calls today though, since I will be busy the rest of the day. If You do not call med, please let me know a s a p if I can send the letter to the prosecutor. I would like to send it first thing tomorrow morning. You may tell med by mail.

I’ve been surprised by the pre-emptory my-way-or-highway tone of recent pronouncements about 2014 as *new* *improved* condition-based draw down start dates — since Nato/Af-Pak is definitely on the agenda for Lisbon — and since Petraeus is due to appear before the U.S. Congress for Q&A progress report in December.

Have antiwar protests been organized for Lisbon? (Of course, here in the USA land of the “free (corporate) press” we’d never know… much as we are told remarkably little fact-based “news” about anything — it’s all emotionally charged editorial all the time).

Yes, I’m feeling rather stricken and helpless.
Just gotta watch what happens.

What Sweden and the PTB are doing here is about as strategically stupid as Japan was bombing Pearl Harbour… This will only end in tears of lost credibility for them, at the very least. How can they be so stupid?

We have heard that some members of the European Parliament are planning to raise questions about the torture and abuse shown in the Iraq war logs. I think we also heard that JA was planning to go to Lisbon. Rick of rixstepnews (and the earlier thread) did a blogpost a while ago correlating each of Ny’s public non-announcements with JA’s public appearances — quite the match-up. The other day someone predicted she would pop up today or tomorrow, and there she is.

A number of people who met mainly on Twitter (but also here) have formed a site called WL Central, that just got going this week. There’s an archived building there. Here is the news story with updates for today:

Yes, this move by the prosecutors seems primarly aimed at restricting his freedom of movement … and appears unnecessary (how many times have he and his lawyers expressed their willingness to to make themselves available) and thus abusive … save “immediate detention” for the demonstrably uncooperative or dangerous/violent.

Sweden wanting Assange because of a broken condom is a ruse. This whole matter is being orchastrated so he can be put into a physical situation where he will not be physically safe and protected from external harm. That is what is going on here. He could be positioned “accidently on purpose” into a lethal setup.
THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING.

What worries me about the Swedish arrest warrant is that Ny could take JA into custody and then just continue with her perverse delays, so that he could be indefinitely detained. I presume there are ways to fight against that in Sweden, but challenges on constitutional or human-rights grounds can take a long time anywhere.

I hope that JA’s London lawyer can fight successfully to keep him there.

Unbelievable just a while ago that an international arrest order for rape could be brought against Assange for a broken condom during consentual sex. Don’t think it is so unbelievable now that he could be made into a ham sandwich or an enemy combantant.

Coherence and accountability still largely to entirely absent in the Swedish Prosecutor’s Office.

If they felt they could charge Assange — as they apparently stated they did in late September — without interview, how in the world can they claim they suddenly require said interview?

If they charged Assange in late September, then why were these specifics (apparently/obviously) not communicated to his legal counsel, along with all the usual disclosure of evidence, etc.

At present it seems murky as to whether an Interpol arrest warrant has been requested, much less granted — and specifics are theoretically being withheld to avoid “flight” or some such bullshit.

Yes, all appearances are that they want to drive him underground until they can indefinitiely detain him.

Yes, I believe I’ve read that men awaiting trial for similar “crimes” can be held for remarkable periods of time without bail option.

I’d have thought the Swedish authorities would have gotten their ducks in row … apparently not. Though they appear to have added a third “molestation” charge, we’re back to only one alleged “rape” (by some new 21st century morphed definition) and some, irrc, “unlawful detention” but it’s remains unclear what charges pertain to which “victim” (and on what dates) — since apparently being unavailable by cell phone and leaving your stuff at someone’s house was at one point thought to be the basis of one or two allegations.

I really held out hope they would just drop the whole thing. I’d like to know how the “victims” feel about this circus they set in motion.

Susan, the similarities between this case and the Guantanamo military joke trials are starting to become horrifying. They can (and probably will) arrest JA as a flight risk and keep him in jail for an extended amount of time without lawyer or communication with the outside. No wikileaks. And we’ve seen their idea of reasonable time. Meanwhile, Sweden is updating their rape laws. Apparently they are trying to make explicit consent a requirement … not just no means no, but really only a written yes means yes. And that would probably be unlawful coercion. Stuff is being posted at wlcentral.org as it becomes available, and I wrote something I’ll keep updating on my blog as well as here, but it is starting to feel very scary. Public opinion, even if we could mobilize it, doesn’t seem to count for much.

Well fortunately, I doubt they can make the proposed new laws retroactive, but I still marvel over ‘unlawful coersion’ which I think it what — **presto-change-o ** transforms consenual sex into rape … seems dodgy to me

and yes, I wonder how many people have been convicted on this basis — gotta wonder what this might look like that does not involve either threat or actual violence, intimidation — neck kisses?? ear whispers?? pleadings and tears?? glowerings, furrowed brow, and expressions of frustration?? cursing?

The psychology of these proposed new definitions is ALL WRONG imho. They appear to believe they are addressing imagined “inherent inequality” by enshrining it in laws… instead, how about making women more equal in all ways, teach women how to be assertive and how take responsibility for their actions and their lives … then we’ll talk. It’s like these laws are being made by old-folks based on some helplessness they felt then … or something

I think they’re just going to increase hostilities and resentments … not unlike bullshit “political correctness” minutia … you don’t have to worry much about needing to be “P.C.” if you simply adhere to good manners and respect for the feelings of other people … Just another authoritarian-worshiping bean-counter’s paradise — parsing and reparsing — taking all joy and sponteneity out of life.

Well, I thought they couldn’t make the laws retroactive either, but it depends. They can instruct the courts to start interpreting things more liberally without actually needing new laws in this case, I think. After what we’ve seen, it doesn’t seem like they’ve heard that they can’t do a lot of things … how on earth did they get an arrest warrant, for instance?

He faces one count of rape and one count of sexual molestation related to an instance around August 17 in Enkoping, just outside Stockholm. He then faces two counts of sexual molestation between August 13 and 18 in Stockholm, and one count of illegal use of force between August 13 and 14, also in the capital.

Assange could be sentenced to at least two years in prison if convicted, according to the document.

It is the first time authorities have mentioned probable cause. The molestation charge, previously mentioned in the case, has also been upgraded to sexual molestation.

I keep being amazed how various aspects of “the story” morph and change over a few days. It really is like playing the party game of telephone…

Infuriating that Ny can baldly contend that the warrant is necessary because they have been “unable” to interview him … infuriating and deeply manipulative and dishonest …

“The background is that he has to be heard in this investigation and we haven’t been able to get a hold of him to question him,” Ny said earlier Thursday.

The Pentagon warned Senate and House defense lawmakers that the website WikiLeaks could disclose a “tranche” of classified U.S. State Department cables as early as Nov. 26.

The documents “touch on an enormous range of very sensitive foreign policy issues,” Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Elizabeth King said in an e-mail today to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees.

“We anticipate that the release could negatively impact U.S. foreign relations,” King wrote, telling committee staff, “we will brief you once we have a better understanding of what documents the WikiLeaks publication contains.”

24 Nov 15:00 Update: Sweden’s mid-court decides #Assange international arrest should remain not on “rape” charges but “sexual molestation” which is a minor victory for Assange. The arrest warrant appeal will now go to the Supreme Court.

Last Thursday arrested Julian Assange in absentia by the Stockholm District Court on suspicion of a case of rape, three cases of sexual assault and one case of duress.

The following day was an international inquiry through both Schengen SIS and Interpol.
“Busy man”

But the arrest was challenged, in the wake of Assanges lawyer Bjorn Hurtig.

In an appeal to the Svea Court of Appeals, he wrote that his client on several occasions that he is pleased to participate in the hearings and that he himself offered several possible dates. But none of these dates have been accepted by the prosecutor, at one point, explaining that one of the investigators was sick.

“It should be borne in mind that Julian Assange is a very busy man with dedication over the world, “said Hurtig.
A case less

Today the Court of Appeal took a decision. Detention down. But the Court of Appeal considers that the rape as Julian Assange arrested for not a felony. They claim not to Assange be remanded for one of the three cases of sexual molestation as the District Court arrested him. It is the sexual molestation on 16-17 August in Enköping who dislike the Court of Appeal for the arrest.

Assanges lawyer Bjorn Hurtig told TT that he is “slightly satisfied” with the Court of Appeal’s decision even though his client is still in custody. It motivates him to appeal rape graduated down from the normal rate for the most minor version, and removed a case of sexual molestation.

– I am now going to appeal to the Supreme Court. Assange has given me a mandate to exhaust all legal possibilities in Sweden, “Hurtig said.

The timing is either uncanny or, more likely, suspect. The news from Bloomberg and elsewhere says to me that the Pentagon knows for sure what this latest publication is going to be, and the most obvious way they would have of knowing that is that the NY Times have been talking to them through back channels, with or without WL’s assent.

We don’t know how long the newspapers have been given embargoed access, but it’s possible the U.S. knew what was coming and vaguely when a week or more ago — which would give them time to put a little pressure on the Swedes.

All the huffing and puffing from the U.S. about revealing their precious policy issues and damaging international relations. They make that sound like respectable business, but in fact they use the diplomatic language to cover up perfidy. Maybe international relations need a good overhaul.

Actually, I think getting the “rape” charge knocked down to _____ ((whatever the f*ck it is now is that it can be called a lesser charge, compared to the orther (wtf) charger)) is a big deal for his future potential to get alien residency status somewhere* not to mention simple “entry” both now and in the future.

*I had a friend in high school whose brother agreed to plead guilty to a opium possession charge — small amount , simple personal smoking tar, recreational use, not for sale, no actual documented “addiction” — however, an automatic felony — little did he realize that in the fine print was that he was to be always, in perpetuity, a “registered narcotic abuser” who needed to check-in with the local constabulary at every new place of residency.

Hi everybody, I’m a lawyer in NSW Australia and have been following [lurking? :-)] here for some time. I am a supporter or Wikileaks and Assange.

Now I have a theory, I hope I’m wrong but consider this scenario.

The reason that Ms Nye, Swedish prosecutor wants Assange back in Sweden in custody is because there has been possibly a dirty deal done with the US who will apply to Sweden for extradition on some trumped up charge (Espionage US domestic law, even anti-terrorism law). All it would take for Sweden to cave in on that request is that the US would threaten mayhem in security assistance/sharing.

Normally that extradition would have to go through the Swedish Courts, and that could take some time—think of the propaganda victory of having Assange locked up for years while all this crap is being sorted–including the sexual assault stuff.

(And what if they avoid those extradition proceedings where the courts are against them, and the Swedish authorities turn a blind eye to a little secret, “unknown” kidnapping and rendition by the CIA or its hirelings and the Swedes say “He escaped from lawful custody” and then the US puts him in Guantanamo out of sight and hidden from the Red Cross in perpetuity???)

Does anyone here trust that the US is NOT capable of pulling a stunt like that?
There’s something that stinks in the whole “must have him in custody” mania.

I read the news on Assange’s interpol request for arrest by the Swedish Unfit Prosecutor. I read the following comments by Tomi and skdadl and they were hilarious!

tomi’s quote:

“Sweden wanting Assange because of a broken condom is a ruse. This whole matter is being orchastrated so he can be put into a physical situation where he will not be physically safe and protected from external harm. That is what is going on here. He could be positioned “accidently on purpose” into a lethal setup.
THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING.”

Tomi,

Ny could have interrogated Assange while he was in Sweden and she deliberately delayed as she these allegations were unfounded. Now, while AJ is planning on collateral damage to foreign diplomatic relations, Ny has been called on to arrest Assange.

Here’s the trick. We are not sure whether Ny is helping Assange or hurting. If Assange is in the Swedish custody, then he might be kept safe from U.S extraditing him from U.K and other countries.

On the other hand, if Ny’s actions could hurt Assange’s future, then his lawyer should claim international support and defend Assange.

This rape case is extremely silly. It is politically motivated.
However, the whole case is bizarre.

on November 19, 2010 at 5:05 pm skdadl wrote:

What worries me about the Swedish arrest warrant is that Ny could take JA into custody and then just continue with her perverse delays, so that he could be indefinitely detained. I presume there are ways to fight against that in Sweden, but challenges on constitutional or human-rights grounds can take a long time anywhere.

I hope that JA’s London lawyer can fight successfully to keep him there.”

skdadl,

Either Ny is helping Assange or she is hurting him further. The very fact that Ny delayed interrogation while Assange was in Sweden indicates that Ny is playing her politics. This rape case was straightforward and Ny could have settled this in a month.

I am not sure if I can believe the Swedish prosecutors anymore. They are all in the circus playing their games. Assange must be laughing. He knows the game plan.

I dub the last part above the CIA’s “Nacht und Nebel” (Night and Fog) Gambit –to intimidate and discourage “the others”.

To clarify some points. Such an extradition request could have weak foundations and the deal would be that political pressure by the Swedish authorities would keep such proceedings on the judicial backburner for as long as possible and give them another excuse not to grant bail as Assange would be more of a flight risk facing US extradition than if he was simply facing the dubious sex/molestation charges in Sweden. The weakness of the US case would not necessarily be a problem.

Where the extradition case is forced on by Assange’s lawyers against deliberate delays, remember it’s not that difficult for authorities to adjust judges rosters to find “amenable” judges. This extradition process and appeals could go on for months and perhaps more than a year, (I don’t know how many appeal processes are available for extradition proceedings in Sweden) but one thing is sure: if it’s planned well, it would be designed to keep Assange in custody for a long time.

This “plan” if correct, could also explain why US authorities like the FBI have been keeping quiet lately in crafting charges (dubious at best, he was never in the jurisdiction and Espionage charges have to prove at least he conspired with/aided and abetted eg Manning prior to the uploading of documents).

Therefore craft those charges applicable for ease of extradition–trumped up terrorism charges would be better for the purpose. If those charges don’t stick with Assange ultimately extradited, then hold him in custody in the US as a material witness for the prosecution of eg Manning.

Get Manning with a plea bargain to give false evidence against Assange. The possibilities are endless with the Dirty Tricks Department of the CIA/Pentagon.

We also have to remember that the US’s corporate media would be supporting the US government in all of this.

Now ordinarily, the Swedes would deal with the sex charges in Sweden first. So even if he’s acquitted of those charges, that’s when they activate the extradition proceedings, which might even be hidden up until that time. Again, even if those proceedings fail, he’s still in custody for a considerable period until those extradition matters are resolved.

Peter Kemp, I share your suspicion that someone wants to detain him indefinitely — at least — by any means they can invent, and I think that’s what they’re doing with the law in both Sweden and the U.S. — just plain making stuff up.

It is frustrating and frightening. Sometime in the next few days, though, we have the great publication of the U.S. diplomatic cables to look forward to. There should be so much in there for all of us in our different countries.

Agreed — it is breathtaking … there are so many frustrated people, in so many countries, fighting their own governments who persist in “supporting” American imperial ambitions, by one means or another. I suspect these cables will provide first some “transparency” and then — god willing –“leverage” … America crossed into rabid-dog “rogue state” territory quite a while back and, while economically we really don’t “deserve” the deference we are accorded, we continue to cast a large shadow, particularly with our large too often controlling “interest” in international bodies.

It feels strange … like waiting for a substance abuser to “hit bottom” … I suspect it’s going to get very ugly and uglier still … hold on tight.

Indeed skdadl, and again a blast of hypocrisy with the “threatened lives” bs–they just don’t get it how offensive that must be to eg the families of the 66,000 odd dead civilians in Iraq, and the millions of us who protested across the world in 2002.

What I’m hoping is in the new leak is cables showing our ex-prime minister John Howard’s dirty deals with Bush over entering the war (and therefore lying to the parliament as to when he committed to join). This along with details on Guantanamo Bay inmates Habib and David Hicks, the latter particularly in which Howard and minions did a Pontius Pilate and left him to rot for 5 or so years.

I’ll not be surprised if more evidence surfaces in one way or another for war crimes and crimes against humanity on the part of members of the COW. (Not much more is needed for a prosecution of Bush The Lesser, he’s now publicly boasting about authorising waterboarding.)

We could be paraphrasing Churchill soon:

“Never in the field of holding the US to account has so much been owed by so many to so few.” !!!

The despondency so many of us have felt over the last 8 years is being lifted methinks.

Today, I am sure the world is rocking or swaying under the pressure of a seismic wikileak reporting of their criminal activities.

There was an excitement for sure in our home from teenagers discussing about the actions of various world leaders or I call them men in suits who have committed unbelievable crimes against humanity.

My only concern is: alright, Assange and his colleagues have published or exposed the worms on the world leaders and the U.S. operation around the world. The question is: Who benefits from such an exposure?

My analysis that Israel is creating the blackmailing of U.S and other nations deliberately in order to wage a war against Iran and Islamic nations by this exposure. The goal is subtle and the destruction is real worldwide. I believe that this exposure may either be a blessing or a curse. I am positive that U.S. is quite capable of handling their crisis. They have been in hot waters ever since the American Revolution. The mass population is aware of these operations and wikileak is spreading the news that is late indeed.

And, for Julian Assange, he might be protected by the same people who have orchestrated this massive plot. Ny or Sweden might be behind Assange in exposing U.S. The rape scenarios is a facade!

Does anyone have a link to the Wikileaks diplomatic cables cache? I can find any number of stories and articles about them, but not the actual cables themselves. Whenever I try to access them, it goes straight to the page about the Iraq war diaries. Is there a Twitter feed somewhere?

Okay – I just found the links to the cache of cables on Wikileaks and to the Twitter feed, courtesy of *The Age* newspaper here in Melbourne. I had begun to wonder if the mainstream media here was going to try the old ‘ignore it and it will go away’ tactic that seemed to work so well for it with the Iraq diaries … The other tactic – demonising the messenger – proceeds apace, predictably.

Nobody in the media is mentioning an aspect of why the Saudi Arabia royal family and other cash rich arabs now want a war with Iran.
They will make huge amounts of money financing both sides and surely they will…

It’s so quiet here. I wonder if it’s because everyone has been rendered as speechless and horrified as I have been over the latest developments concerning the continuing persecution of Mr Assange. It’s almost too much to believe. The mainstream media is cheerleading it along; no one seems too concerned about the actual facts of the ‘case’ against him, merely parroting the line that he’s ‘wanted for rape’ or ‘wanted for sex crimes’. It’s beyond outrageous.

“Dear Prime Minister
From the Sydney Morning Herald I note you made a comment of “illegal” on the matter of Mr Assange in relation to the ongoing leaks of US diplomatic cables.

Previously your colleague and Attorney General the Honourable McClelland announced an investigation of possible criminality by Mr Assange.

As a lawyer and citizen I find this most disturbing, particularly so when a brief perusal of the Commonwealth Criminal Code shows that liability arises under the Espionage provisions, for example, only when it is the Commonwealth’s “secrets” that are disclosed and that there must be intent to damage the Commonwealth.

I join with Professor Saul also in asking you Prime Minister why has there been no public complaint to the US about both Secretaries of State Condaleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton being in major breach of International law ie UN Covenants, by making orders to spy on UN personnel, including the Secretary General, to include theft of their credit card details and communication passwords. Perhaps the Attorney General should investigate this clear prima facie evidence of crime (likely against Australian diplomats as well), rather than he attempts to prosecute the messenger of those crimes.

It is also disturbing that no Australian official has castigated Sweden for the shameful treatment Mr Assange has received ie his human rights abused, in that he has not been charged and served with papers in the English language regarding the evidence against him of alleged sexual offences. This is contrary to Article 6 of the European Covenant on Human Rights to which Sweden is a signatory nation.

Those offences remain unclear and the Swedish prosecutor Ms Ny appears to be making up the law as she wants. It appears now, by Ms Ny’s interpretation that when consensual sex occurs but if a condom breaks, the male party is liable to 2 years imprisonment for sexual assault. All this information is publicly available.

An Australian citizen is apparently being singled out for “special treatment” Prime Minister. There are legitimate concerns among citizens here that his treatment by the Swedes is connected to US interests which are against the activities of Wikileaks, and you will note the strident, outrageous (and illegal) calls inciting violence against him in the US in demands for his assassination, by senior influential US politicians.

Granted that in western political circles, Mr Assange is not flavour of the month, but what he is doing in my opinion, and in the opinion of many here and abroad, is vitally necessary to expose American foreign policy failures and potential war crimes and crimes against humanity–not for the purpose of damaging US interests but to make them accountable.

While we have close and a good relationship with the US, there is no doubt that US influence and power is declining. That we appear to be still posturing, (given that declining power and a new paradigm of privately enforced accountability) to the US on the issue of Wikileaks is, Prime Minister, deeply disappointing.

Peter Kemp, I salute you! You have inspired me to also write to our Prime Minister. I hope you don’t mind if I lift some of the phrases from your letter (excluding the word ‘lawyer’, since I’m not one … )

I read one article about the British police knowing Assange’s whereabouts and in the comments below, there was a wonderful one by a person saying: ‘He’s here. He’s staying in my house. Come and get him.’ Or words to that effect. Bearing in mind that some rightwing nutjob on US radio is now offering a $50,000 reward for any credible evidence from anyone that could lead to Assange’s whereabouts, I suggest we all have a Spartacus moment and declare the same thing:

‘Yes, I know the whereabouts of Julian Assange. He’s staying here at my house. Come and get him!’

It would cause a lot of confusion, and that would be a good thing. What’s being done to him is outrageous.

This looks like the western/christian equivalent of a fatwa, such as the one against Salman Rushdie – widely condemned by the same powers that now use the same methods for the same reasons.

Wikileaks has made the monster show its fangs and stinking breath. It is time we take or democracy back and we can all start in a humble way by boycotting PayPal for their cowardice in refusing service to Wikilekas. Let their money flows dry up and set an example. Amazon is also on my shitlist…

It seems that in the wake of the release of diplomatic cables, there is a growing sense of outrage amongst (some) Americans regarding US govt persecution of Assange. It’s becoming a more public debate anyway, and within some mainstream media. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming that Americans are now seeing the light or anything like that, but I get a sense that more and more people are starting to notice.

This is thanks in part to Glenn Greenwald at Salon, and a few other political sites (shout out to GeorgieBC and Rixstep!). The caving in to gov’t pressure by companies like Amazon (see a petition here: http://bit.ly/gNpU2E ) and PayPal, and the ridiculous directive from the State Dept. that Americans should not download or even read the material, have made people wonder why the gov’t is so desperate to prevent us from reading the cables. This momentum must be maintained.

The curtain is coming down, I think (I hope), exposing the power, corruption, and lies of my government.

I’ve read the whole thread and something that hasn’t been mentioned as far as I can recall, and I must admit to skimming some of the posts, is Assange’s lawyer claiming that the Swedish authorities hadn’t issued a warrant for Assange on rape charges, but on charges of “Sex by Surprise”, namely sex without a condom, regardless of whether the sex was consensual.

@exile – I have. But the “Sex by Surprise” nomenclature took me by surprise as I didn’t see it used before.

On the one hand the arrest warrant, which has been reinstated, is said to stipulate rape and sexual molestation, while the Sex by Surprise charge seems to relate entirely to sex without a condom, arising from the notion that prior stipulation by the woman that the man wears a condom over rides that of a woman ultimately consenting to sex without a condom. That’s assuming he didn’t wear a condom. Maybe he’s being prosecuted for a broken condom, but how that works eludes me, especially as the women have already stated the sex was consensual and there was no fear or violence involved.

In any case, I’m in mourning as I’ve lost any hope that the David and Goliath fairytale will end in anything happening except the RealPolitik inevitably of David getting sliced and diced. These involve:

What I see happening here is that the support struts for Wikileaks that enables it to function are being knocked out through what appears (to me, anyway) to be unbridled US pressure, namely, pressure on the Swedes to prosecute Assange, and prevent him from establishing a base in Sweden, pressure on the Swiss to close his account, as part of a strategy of cutting off the sources of funding to Assange and to Wikileaks, and eliminating the physical means of getting information to Wikileaks. And then of course there are the DDOS attacks on servers hosting Wikileaks.

Should Assange return to Sweden, it’s easily possible that he will be handed over to the US, or that he will be snatched, regardless of whatever Swedish law actually states in respect of this sort of situation.

The deadliness of the Swedish charges, which Geoffrey Robertson described 3 months ago as trampling on Assange’s human rights, are they will limit his physical movements enabling this to happen.

I assumed the “sex by surprise” was a strange translation of a Swedish legal term for the alleged condom (lack of or breakage) issue. And maybe there are other ways of translating it. But JA’s lawyer is no fool – he may have chosen to go with this wording to emphasize the ludicrousness of the (alleged – because none has been made yet) charge.

I pretty much concur. It looks bleak. But this David has sown a seed that will be irritating Goliath for a long time yet. A debate has begun. The Iraq and Afghan crimes are out there now and need to be investigated and prosecuted. This is not Tienanmen – they can’t just wash away the blood and tell everyone to STFU. The leaks will continue until the US shuts down the Guardian et al, and the internet. And, of course, there’s Pandora’s Box, the insurance file which must number in the tens of thousands of copies by now.

Also, JA is the lightning rod not the building. WL will continue while it is able.

“In exactly the same way – note for note – the failures of Wikileaks provide the blueprint for the systems which will follow it, and which will permanently leave the state and its actors neutered. Assange must know this – a teenage hacker would understand the lesson of Napster. Assange knows that someone had to get out in front and fail, before others could come along and succeed. We’re learning now, and to learn means to try and fail and try again.”

The likelihood is of Assange being thrown into a hole for the rest of his life, and Wikileaks destroyed, but:

“Assange gets to be the scapegoat, the pinup boy for a new kind of anarchism. But what he’s done can not be undone; this tear in the body politic will never truly heal.

Everything is different now. Everything feels more authentic. We can choose to embrace this authenticity, and use it to construct a new system of relations, one which does not rely on secrets and lies. A week ago that would have sounded utopian, now it’s just facing facts. I’m hopeful. For the first time in my life I see the possibility for change on a scale beyond the personal. Assange has brought out the radical hiding inside me, the one always afraid to show his face. I think I’m not alone.”

Thank you for bringing this blog to the world and much appreciation to all who have applied their erudite investigation.

I am an Australian in Sydney urging everyone to write to their MP’s and the PM to support Assange and ensure he gets the legal protection we must afford all of our citizens.

These are dark days but wikileaks have applied a little sunshine to disinfect the lies and manipulation that the governments and major corporations of the world use to suppress freedom, fairness and democracy.

Ironically the site states; Prime Minister is strongly committed to a more accessible, open and transparent way of governing, and wants to hear about the matters that are important to you. Use the following form to send your questions or concerns to the Prime Minister.

We are certainly witnessing history being created. There have been issues between authoritarian governments and the internet but the Wikileaks embassy cables but have created the first major confrontation for major western governments and the internet. Western governments have probably been behind “denial of service” attacks on Wikileaks and the US Government has clearly applied massive pressure on corporations such as Amazon, Paypal and other international entities and governments to close down Wikileaks publications.

The problem is that even for powerful governments the process of constricting undesirable information flow on the internet is like putting your finger in a leaking dam. WikiLeaks does not depend only on web technology alone. Copies of secret cables – and probably other information that would have damaging consequences for corporations and governments – can all be distributed by peer-to-peer technologies such as BitTorrent.

We are at a critical cross roads, our leaders must either learn to live in a WikiLeakable world or they shut down the internet. The latter option is unconscionable in a free, just and democratic society.

My suggestion, governments, corporations and anyone else who is in the public eye must learn to “walk the walk” as well as “talk the talk”!

In 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide’s The News, wrote: “In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win.” I think this says it all nicely!

It would be an injustice if I did not add my two cents. I was quite stunned by Wikileaks response to the police custody of Assange. Assange gave in as he is calculating the odds very well. This might terrify the U.S. and those behind the catastrophe in the world that Wikileak means serious business and they could jeopardize the world internet traffic and their financial markets.

If Sweden is attacking Assange for a minor consensual sexual act, then they deserve the blocking of their website. This is a political fiasco and nobody is sure of what role Sweden and other country played behind wikileak exposure and the rape charges.

First, Australia’s Prime Minister should be ashamed of her role as she did not defend Assange one minute, because she and others were behind Iraq and Afghanistan war. Second, U.S. is under pressure from the Israelis to conduct war on their behalf in Iran and ME regions. United States is bankrupted and Assange or Wikileak exposure of various crimes around the globe came handy to avoid further wars. I am sure Obama Admin. is brilliant in orchestrating this massive attack. I am glad that Hillary Clinton is exposed for who she is – another arch enemy of Obama, I am sure.

About Assange, he reminds me of an alien dropped down to earth for a mission. I am not sure if that alien is good or evil. However, Assange is behaving like he is a James Bond.

Here’s the scoop: Christians believe that the Anti-Christ is going to destroy the global infrastructure by using hackers and exposing the political misdeeds of the rulers in every country. Then, he can strangle the world leaders, economy, and dictate the world. Julian Assange and Wikileak have been hired to do his bidding. It may seem to have a reward, but there is a global danger and it is a subtle one.

I wish Assange good luck. He will not be harmed, because of one who is behind this mission will ensure his safety. This is a mastermind game and I would like to see where it is leading. I hope Assange is not on the side of evil. There is an adage: What is the use of gaining the whole world and losing your soul.

As a matter of fact the details of what happened between Mr Assange and the two women haven’t been made public anywhere. That hasn’t stopped millions of people beliefs one way or the other. It seems that no-one is actually interested in truth or facts when one is so much more comfortable and happy with belief in one’s beliefs. Truth is not hot and sexy enough, it seems.

I wish there was some other place to post issues like this on this blog.

What is new in that CSMonitor article that we didn’t already know? In fact, it convienently leaves out the facts. Facts being that these women were hot to trot and wrote about it after their encounters with JA.

Star f*cking little females, who if they were stupid enough to run to the police about a condom after they had sex with the head of an organisation who is leveraging its documents against the world… then they have no business working anywhere forward thinking might be engaged..

How many men have you ever heard of in the history of mankind who have been done up for having sex in the morning with someone they had sex with a few hours before and is sleeping next to them? How many men and women have even known the condom broke while engaging in sex?

How many women who are raped or sexually molested continue to persue the very same guy within 24 hours of this event and text infactuated messages about him?

When Sweden stoops so low as to equate the words of these women to anything that remotely suggests sexual abuse or rape, there is a severe problem in the system and nothing even close to justice.

Swedish men should be standing up for Julian as much as they need to stand up for sanity in their own country.

Ulla, Any thinking person who looks at this with sufficient bias towards proportionality can see how transparent it is that this is a ruse.

It is one of those times where the politicians think they can stick the public with their explainations that are so absurd that they can get away with it. Because the great masses collectively are stupid enough to let them get away with it. Not this time!

Like the oil in Iraq had nothing to do with the USA going in to get Saddam Hussain.. that kind of thing…….

As a relative newby to this forum let me make this comment. I’ve read all the posts here, and researched far and wide on the Web to get a handle on the charges facing Assange.

First up, I’d have to say that of course it’s possible Assange is guilty on all charges, and therefore a rapist….and he might not. And we may never ever know the truth. Do we even know for certain that the person mos beloved in our lives is exactly what s/he seems to us? There are many people in the world who have had extremely unpleasant surprises in this respect.

So having established Assange might – or might not – be a rapist, each of us attempts to inform ourselves to an informed opinion on the subject.

Having read all the material I can find, my inclination is to doubt it as it doesn’t really past the smell test. Is this coloured by my desire for Assange to be innocent? Possibly, but I’ve suffered these disappointments before about people I respected turning out to be dolts, so if it happened this time, it wouldn’t be the first, just one of the more painful ones.

What makes this most difficult is the fragmented nature of the information that has come from the prosecutor’s office, and the tardiness of the charges. Also In fact, despite the issuing of a Red notice by Interpol, to which Assange immediately and voluntarily complied, I’m not even sure charges have actually been levied even still against Assange, although the nature of those charges is now (finally!) known.

The normal left/right divide here is definitely frayed. The accusers are typified as being from the feminist left, which is a red rag to many of the braying misogynistic class, many of whom are from the left. The right wing brayers of the misogynistic persuasion have generally kept silent, apart from one notable (if that’s the right word) exception.

Even feminists are divided, and I don’t include Naomi Wolf in this assertion, as I don’t believe she’s done herself a service with her comments. Women Against Rape however are extremely unimpressed with Interpol being used this way: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-rape-allegations-freedom-of-speech, which is not to say they necessarily believe he’s innocent. There are also many women, including feminists, who have argued either side of this issue, including on this blog.

The problems arise with the conflation of several factors (in no particular order):

– the issuance of a rape warrant, it’s rescission, and reinstatement in a short time frame

– the subsequent tardy mishandling of the investigation which was so bungled that even a month later in September Geoffrey Robertson considered that the likelihood that not only would Assange be able to seek successful remedy in the European Court of Human Rights, but would like be recompensed. The subsequent 3 month delay during which Assange unsuccessfully attempted several times to speak to the prosecutor have exacerbated this

– the baleful and threatening presence of US power and the threat this poses to Assange being acquired by the US if he is detained for any length of time

– the ever hovering death threats by prominent US figures, including a previous and likely Presidential candidate

– the track record of the US in snatching and rendering people without due process, an abuse (maybe even a crime) in which Sweden has been complicit

– the Swedes allowing and even encouraging Assange to leave the country and then issuing an arrest warrant

– the seeming politicisation of Interpol

In short, the whole case is a perfect storm and has become the number one news story in the world with highly polarised opinions and much shameful rhetoric by people who should know better.

The most sought after guy in the world does a runner from the two women he has slept with and he could be a rapist? Is that the best you have? This is what is wrong with the post you so carefully constructed above.

What gives you any evidence at all that a man who has been chased by two women to the point of sleeping with them is a rapist after he leaves them wanting more as is evidenced by their writings later.. or doesn’t what they said after the intercoure count for evidence against rape in your mind?

I’ve reread my post and while it may be slightly turgid, I don’t understand where you get that construction.

I personally do not believe Assange is guilty of these charges, not knowingly anyway, as I’m not sure how some of these actions for which he may be charged can be crimes, per se, except they do seem to be so under Swedish law.

I’m not sure how a visiting foreigner is supposed to know that allowing his morning erection to come in contact with back of the woman he’s had sex with and spent the night with can be a crime against her sexual integrity.

Sex without a condom but with consent also strikes me as being a strange act to legislate as a crime. Intercourse with a sleeping person could be rape, but in these circumstances they definitely are not, as the only rape charge applies to Ardin. The sleeping sex charge appears to be harassment charge. Even with the nature of the accusations being released, it’s still difficult to make sense of them even in their indigenous idiom.

Ignoring withdrawal of consent during intercourse is a crime in many countries, albeit difficult to prove, but it’s unclear from the charges when this was supposed to have occurred. The rape accusation (charge?) as it stands indicates consent was supposed to have been withdrawn before intercourse (using his body weight to force her legs apart etc), and yet there has been so much debate about mid-facto (if I can coin a term) withdrawal of consent that arose from reports about this purportedly occurring.

Nevertheless there is an actual rape charge brought by or on behalf of Ardin (who is now in the Middle East: http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/09/rundle-r-pe-case-complainant-has-left-sweden-may-have-ceased-co-operating/). The circumstantial evidence after the fact seems to indicate this didn’t happen, particularly as Arden is a strong feminist and would be the first person to react to genuine rape. Her delay in going to the police, and only after she encountered Sofie Wilen is telling, but again not decisive. Also her 7 Steps for Revenge don’t help her credibility, notwithstanding that it is not her composition, simply one she endorses.

All I’m saying is that we can’t be certain, no one can. Only the three people involved know the complete truth. One or more of these three people is lying or distorting events. That’s the only thing that is clear. That’s even without talking about the handling of the case by the SPA that has been so inept that even three months ago, Robertson was calling this out as a blatant infringement of Assange’s human rights.

My money is on Assange’s version of events by about 90%-10%, as his version of events seems to be by far the more consistent in the whole context of events that occurred from the time of the events to the present day.

After reading the news results, I think Assange is naive to sleep with two women who were/are CIA operatives and planned very well to pin him down politically. Julian should repent of his acts and may be G-d will protect him.

I think Wikileak is not about r-pe, but about exposing the atrocities of U.S and other countries against humanity. You would do a great service if you do not discuss about rape.

Recent news, Ardin has escaped to Palestine. Is it one of CIA tactics to hide her there as a Muslim pacifist against the Jews? Or vice versa? What is she doing there after all as a fornicator in Israel? Ana Ardin has brought shame to the Gospel of Jesus. These people truly need to repent and only then she can claim that she is a Christian and bear fruits in the hearts of the Muslim people.

Harrassing or assaulting? If that is what Anna & Jessica or Sophia.. (whatever alias she likes to use these days) think JA did when he made love to them… just wait till the public at large gets a chance…..

Clearly from what these women have said publicly, they found JA irresistable and persued him because of his public position with Wikileaks. That is what attracted them to him in the first place.

If they successfully bedded this person then betray him because they feel they were used for sex (entitled thinking) then sacrafice his security because of it.. they also put the security of Wikileaks at risk.

They betrayed not only JA for their perverse reasoning, but also the fate of Wikileaks and the people of the world who have suffered from injustices never imagined by their bent little minds.

What distresses me, is while we banter defining the delicate definitions of rape regurgitated to make it possible to trap JA, he is in possession by the UK authorities.

The same power structure that had the ability to fix the Iraq Inquiry to satisfy the US interests per their request.. as we have learned in the cable. Now.. what change realistically, if they can fix the Iraq Inquiry do a few lawyers and the law really have towards getting JA released.

This is what I’ve been warning about, it is not about Swedish rape law, it is about powers so deep they can fix major issues at will.

@ tomi, we’re on the same page, although from what I’ve read, I still have more faith both in the great lawyers JA has representing him (Stephens and Robertson, who has cut short a vacation to join in and is immensely distinguished) and in the rigorousness of UK law re extradition. I am NAL, especially not in the UK, but I’ve read several expert analysts who seem to think this warrant can be challenged a long way. The UK High Court has shown itself to be exceptionally enlightened in the torture cases, rejecting Miliband’s requests for suppression, eg, and they are not part of the political system, as the Iraq inquiry is.

JA has never been “charged” with anything, and has had only one minimal chance to speak to prosecutors at all (who didn’t seem interested at the time). The warrant now in London is just more gossip, afaik, and his lawyers haven’t had a chance to respond to it, although Ny’s rep had a chance to motivate it — puzzlingly, too, but then everything out of Ny’s office leaves me scratching my head.

I was shocked by the latest report in the Guardian from Stockholm — two print sources quoted, and guess who? Expressen and Aftonbladet, both part of the story. Very bad reporting — I’ve complained to the Guardian about that. (Search Amelia Gentleman.)

It’s true that a number of American feminists (of a particular kind) are opportunistically using JA’s story as a chance to show off their accomplished theoretical rhetoric — but they’re doing that on the basis of NO evidence at all. They will often claim that they’re not passing judgement on JA, even that they’re not really writing about him, but then they breathlessly report the details of Ny’s warrant and hyperventilate over how serious those “charges” are when they aren’t charges at all and these women clearly have not taken the trouble to learn what’s going on.

Ulla and Siboni, I would warn you that some of the direct claims you make are legally actionable.

I’ve never met a serious feminist who believed that women weren’t responsible for their own actions. In a democracy, every citizen who becomes part of a criminal investigation, whether as an instigator, as AA and SW are, or as someone unfortunately dragged in as a witness (and that can seem unfair), has to be brave enough to speak in public, to tell the truth in public, to face testing in public, because there is no other way either to get at the truth or to run a democracy. AA and SW started this legal case, for whatever reasons. It’s simply absurd that they should be whining now about the public attention they drew upon themselves. Many of us who are seriously concerned about sexual assault and are also genuine feminists are very disturbed to see the trivialization of both that AA and SW, as well as Ny and Borgstrom, seem to be doing.

The definition of rape varies in different countries. In my country it used to be legal to rape in marriage but they changed the law, so now raping your wife would be deemed a crime.

In my country it’s estimated that only 10 % of all rapes ever get reported. Out of those rapes that do get reported to police only 16 % will result in any conviction. As a rule the convicted rapists get a short term probation.

This situation is immoral, say many police(wo)men, judges, lawyers, etc. We are expecting a change in laws so that in the future rape victims might get some justice.

It’s important how rape is defined. If it’s defined as a violation of mutual consent then sexual actions lacking this consent would be deemed rape.

The fact that laws vary means only that those in power maintain certain laws to keep the power imbalanced and untouchable.

“I’ve never met a serious feminist who believed that women weren’t responsible for their own actions. ”

Well put skdadl.. !

Women learn how to teach men to treat them by keeping themselves out of predictaments, by keeping their dignity without needing the law to enforce their rights and by keeping their standards set not on one night stands but on long term trusting relationships. That comes with time and maturity, not with laws.

Meanwhile many women do not want to report their blunders to the police as they grow up and through the morass of dating and sleeping with horney men .. which some would these days seem to classify as rape events?

Ulla, the only two print sources quoted in that report are both part of the story, especially Expressen, which is probably going to be at least a witness in a conspiracy hearing. No reporter worthy of the name would do that, certainly if she wanted to work for the Guardian for long, which is why I complained.

Furthermore, you’re not telling any North American feminist anything new. I’m sure that Canada’s laws about genuine sexual assault are at least as rigorous as Sweden’s. Some of our other laws, however, would appear to be even more rigorous.

tomi, I’m hoping that some of those smart UK lawyers are already working on the case to go to the European Court of Human Rights. Whatever Ulla says, Sweden can be held responsible under European and international law for violations of rights, and Ny’s many puzzling (and sometimes incompetent — see the first arrest warrant, which had to be returned) actions look like rich raw material.

I’m hoping that enough counter pressure from the world will be enough along with the law and the excellent lawyers representing JA to bear against the forces that want to keep him in custody as anything they can use to keep him there.

Rapist is the most ironic charge however.. you couldn’t make this stuff up…

I read the beginning of the interview with their (pro bono, self-interested imho) lawyer in the guardian yesterday and marveled that with all of the endless mean-spirited harrassment they have allegedly endured I’ve haven’t seen a new photograph, video or heard anything like a quote, even a no-comment.

Over at Salon, where there are many many, imho, knee-jerk automatic pilot “feminists” there’s much to-do about the women being smeared … I guess because the speculation regarding the Cuba connection is a “smear” rather than a valid concern … or because ever questioning the veracity or motives of an alleged victim is always a secondary victimization or something … much upset.

Jungle Jim, that’s a question many have asked, and it’s one reason that the possibility of an action at the European Court keeps being mentioned.

Susan, when you’re at Salon, every day, read Greenwald. It will make you feel better. He will lift you up. He is fighting so hard and so well. He and Amy Goodman deserve awards for what they have done on this story — they’re really being faithful and tough.

The German Domscheit-Berg, along with several other former Wikileaks staffers, plans to launch a website they’re calling OpenLeaks as early as next week, Domscheit-Berg told Forbes in an interview. Like WikiLeaks, the new site will allow leakers to anonymously submit information to a secure online dropbox. But unlike its parent site, it won’t publish that information itself. Instead, it will allow the source to designate any media or non-governmental organizations he or she chooses and have that information passed on for fact-checking, redaction and publication. That difference, argues Domscheit-Berg, will allow OpenLeaks to accomplish much of the transparency achieved by WikiLeaks, without drawing the same political fury and legal pressure.

“To constrain the power of the site, we’re splitting submission from the publication part. We won’t publish any documents ourselves. The whole field is diversified,” says Domscheit-Berg. “No single organization carries all of the responsibility or all of the workload.”

Resource constraints, as Assange told me in an interview last month, have forced WikiLeaks to choose only its “highest impact” material for publication. But those constraints have also politicized WikiLeaks and forced it to make subjective decisions about its targets, Domscheit-Berg argues. “We want to be a neutral conduit,” he says. “That’s what’s most politically sustainable as well.”

OpenLeaks will integrate with the organizations it passes information to, functioning as a secure tip box on their sites. Those organizations can choose to store leaked information on their own servers or leave it in the hands of OpenLeaks, Domscheit-Berg says. “All this is cryptographically separated in a fashion that everyone has their own dedicated part of the system,” he says.

The project will initially partner with five newspapers worldwide, but soon expand to anyone who wants to participate. “Newspapers, NGOs, labor unions, anyone who wants to receive information from anonymous sources, we enable all these people to run something like this,” says Domscheit-Berg.

And if the recipient organization chooses not to publish a leak? After a time designated by the source, the leaked material can be sent to other media outlets. “If a newspaper doesn’t publish it, it will be shared,” says Domscheit-Berg. “They can’t just put it in a drawer.”

I sure would not get involved with a guy who chats to Kevin Poulsen at Wired and to Newsweek, and who is married to the head of Microsoft in Berlin, but I’m the nervous type …

Essentially, Daniel has both swallowed and is regurgitating the State Department/White House line, which in my view is McCarthyist — politicians get to decide who’s a journalist and who isn’t. Extremely dangerous, and all journalists at least should be fighting against that. But Daniel isn’t; he’s collaborating in casting doubt on WikiLeaks integrity, by contrast with the corporate media.

Yes, and in several quotes he seems to still continue to be angry at Assange’s behavior towards his own self. Aren’t there bigger fish to fry or is he trying to create buzz for his tell-all? He comes off as rather prissy and judgmental, scolding even.

Also, wrt “transparency,” I have found far too many of his statements, to put it neutrally, vague and opaque. I do not know what he means by the words he uses resulting in the multiple possible interpretations — yielding more questions than answers.

His overtly “risk adverse” statements are also less than confidence inspiring. I gathered from one interview with him a couple of months ago that Germany has zero whistleblower protections, so OpenLeaks may meet some source protection need — however, I’m not really certain how willing journalists will be to spend time and resources on utterly unvetted “leaks” and, if they have access to the source individuals, many of the protections afforded by anonymity then seem likely to vanish. There are plenty of crazies and fabulists in the world eager to share their “secrets” — separating wheat from chaff is a significant editorial function.

Assange’s repeated complaint was that leaks, without significant “support” in the form of committed media participation and “window dressing” as it were, went nowhere.

Again, there may be a large number of folks desperate for an iron-clad-anonymous way to disseminate lower level “niche” leaks in an environment without whistleblower protection … I simply don’t know and suddenly I realize I have no idea about journalistic “source protection” in other countries so I’ll shut up now, except people seem to forget that documents and other evidence are leaked constantly the old fashioned way … people with materials contacting journalists/authorities directly under the safety umbrella of whatever press freedom, source protection laws, and cooperation with authority deals applicable in their jurisdiction. Exposing criminal activity by “leaking” evidence is rarely prosecuted, iykwim. Later.

PS: He has never been charged publicly. Given Ny’s perversities, it’s possible, I guess, that she has secretly already prepared charges, but that has never been announced. She says she just wants to give him his formal hearing.

Do you understand the difference between investigation and charges, Ulla?

Yes, that’s one of those things they’ve gone back and forth on … there were allegedly “secret” charges filed in September, irrc, which then in today’s HuffP.o. interview with Stephen’s he (or rather someone paraphrasing him) says

Stephens said that he has not explicitly discussed the particulars of the Swedish allegations with his client. “He hasn’t expressed anything to me about the women… there have been reports about this, but I try to keep his mind off of this.” He described his frustration that the case was revived after Sweden’s director of public prosecutions dropped the case in early November after reviewing the files. “She said there was not a shred of evidence,” said Stephens.

Which left me with a big “November, huh?” and I think that’s when I stopped reading … I hate that technique of intersplicing direct quotes with paraphrasing or editorialized segues inserted by the “author” — shit man, I dunno.

I used to speak for Daniel “Schmitt” here in the past and I still think, he is not a traitor to Wikileaks or the idea.

But I must say, that his “new idea” looks more than odd to me. He gets the informations from leakers – who indeed are not protected here in Germany, as he rightfully complains – and gives it to the media for a five digit sum. Smaller papers can buy it for a lower price, but only get the shareware version…

That reminds me to the business concept of an agency for arranging rides or a roommate service. A broker for secrets…

Another subject: Are you as concerned about the car explosions in Stockholm as I am? If this would be related, than I fear the worst. Who is trying to compare Wikileaks to terrorists? Hope, it’s just a coincidence.

The Swedish prosecution published the charges in September, they were on their site aklagare.se, but I did notice that they weren’t republished here by any of you. The information was very clear and they referred to exact laws.

And just recently when Assange was taken in custody in Britain the charges were published again on the internet. I’m going to quote one published version next, if you’re interested what the charges are:

* * *
When Assange appeared before a London court following his arrest on Tuesday, Gemma Lindfield, representing the Swedish authorities, told the judge that Assange was wanted in connection with four allegations made by two women.

She told the court the first complainant, identified only as Miss A, said she was victim of “unlawful coercion” on the night of August 14 this year in Stockholm.

The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

The second charge alleged Assange “sexually molested” Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her “express wish” one should be used.

The third charge claimed Assange “deliberately molested” Miss A on August 18 “in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity”.

The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

Maybe the problem is the meaning of the word “charge”. If he was charged, than he would have to face the court directly. – At least this is my understanding.

If he wasn’t charged yet, than the prosecutors are still investigating the case. And this is, what Marianne Ny clearly says:

“Apart from the arrest, nothing new has happened in the investigation, but the arrest is a prerequisite for continuing the investigation. I cannot give information on the next step, as the matter at the moment is handled by British authorities.”

Ulla, a lot of reporters are sloppy reporters. If they don’t know the case, the word “charges” comes easily to them, so they use it. You haven’t given us a link, so I don’t know who the sloppy reporter there is, but s/he is sloppy.

JA is wanted for questioning in an investigation. Ny had to write out a minimal list of the topics she is investigating in order to motivate the warrant for an English judge. But that is all she did.

If she had brought charges publicly, the case would be entirely different, in both venues.

Being sexually harassed, molested or raped is a traumatic experience. You can’t expect a trauma patient to behave in a coherent manner. A traumatic experience is more severe when someone close to you, someone you trusted, treated you violently. It will cause a shock state lasting from days to longer.

Yes we do know what the women thought Ulla. They posted and tweeted what they were thinking and they sent numerous messages to JA as well. A point missed is that he tried to show this phone to the police during his initial questioning and they refused to take any record of his phone messages from these women. So far, nobody out there has mentioned this yet, but I’m sure it is part of his defense.

Err, Ulla… Pardon, I gave you a link to the official claims by Marianne Ny and you answer me this: “Oh, I get it. You’re not really interested in truth but some official procedure where you can claim victory. Isn’t that it?”

I think, the word “charges” gets lost in translation and some – like you – don’t read carefully, if they read that word.

This is why I linked to the prosecutor’s official site. But seemingly you think, I bought this address and published my own version.

Oh, yes. That’s just what traumatized victims do — boast of their conquests online for days … right up until they find out about each other, at which point the trauma kinda shifts, yes? Cue the hell-hath-no-fury scenario.

tomi’s got it right: JA offered up his phone as physical evidence, and the prosecutors declined to take it. I hope that someone has that phone on cold ice somewhere.

formal “charges” need to be filed in court — and they are what the person is tried for … after the investigation is concluded.

Anyone can make accusations … which can also be called “charges”

however, they are not legal charges until they are filed with the courts against an individual who is then arraigned on same eventually to face trial, again, on same…

at least as far as I’m aware … There were reports that formal charges had been filed in, irrc, September in secret and never communicated to Assange’s legal team — this is HIGHLY irregular as I understand it (not to mention to have filed charges without having interviewed him) … Assanges lawyers have said that NO CHARGES HAVE BEEN FILED … and that is a statement that I don’t think they would make erroneously … (and other events, etc. suggest that there are no charges — at least on this matter).

Then, of course, there may be other “charges” and possible indictment, for instance, from the United States arising from the Grand Jury … and it has been suggested that Sweden might drop their entire “matter” and turn Assange over to the Americans on “more serious charges” — which is making some of the feminists outraged (so what else is new?)

JJ, I don’t know, am NAL, but starting from the very first night, there is that curious fact that Expressen phoned the police/duty prosecutor and asked whether an arrest warrant for JA was being issued … while SW was still being interviewed.

Gosh. How could that have happened? And after that, there are dozens more similar questions.

Ulla, One of the researchers here and with WLCentral has it all on record. Maybe if you do some digging yourself like I did you can find out what was pulled out of the Wayback machine and the timeline for the tweets and blog postings. Hilarious and dangerous because it implicates the women legally, but that’s their future pain for later.

Tomi, what I’ve seen in those tweets is nothing. Unless you’re saying that rape victims (in order to be believed by anyone) should not do anything normal after what happened to them.

What has been added to quite normal matters has been imagination. People have told stories stemming from their imagination and then other people believed it and added their version to it, and on and on it goes – until, we have an American journalist claiming in a public event that in Sweden they have something called secret sex and that secret sex is a crime.

Yeah, I’m not kidding here. It was Arianne Huffington in today’s online media circus on Wikileaks. And you know whatf: the other people in the audience believed that. They trusted Ms Huffington to have researched the matter, they trusted her word. But she didn’t know, she was ignorant and too lazy to study and find out. Typical American, maybe.

What happened to seeking truth? What happened to Journalism? Journalistic Values?

The amount of BS especially in the American media is 75 %. Okay, I just pulled that number out of my ass. But that’s what people in media do too: they pull stuff out of their ass. And the other people believe it!

You wanted to believe that your hero was good and anyone who doesn’t seem to think so is bad. You twisted the evidence until it looked good to you. But it still didn’t make it real.

Reality keeps lurking. And so you want it to go away. Because it doesn’t fit together with what you imagined happened between those people that you imagined. So it’s time to change the subject. It’s time to deny the facts. It’s time to do whatever that keeps the imagined still live.

This writing here was being addressed to no-one in particular but whomever it concerns.

How would you prove, without using any of the imagined (later added) stuff, that the tweets show the women lying in their police reports resulting in four charges against Julian Assange? I doubt you have a case there.

I have been following this discussion here right from the very start. That’s why I know that the facts are scarce and imagined stories are the ones being repeated and believed. The story gets so often repeated that it makes people think it’s the truth. But what they believe in is a story, made up by somebody’s imagination. Fiction.

What facts were there in Anna Ardin’s deleted tweeds or blog posts? Anything to point to the direction that she would have lied at the police station?

How is anything (other than fiction stories) pointing to the direction that Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilen couldn’t have experienced with Assange the molestation or harassment or rape that they claim to have experienced? I don’t see anything, but I do see lies being repeated.

That people keep repeating that Assange only had consensual sex with the women just doesn’t make it so. Repeating the lie doesn’t make the charges against Assange go away. There are four charges. Have you read them?

Anonymous – It doesn’t sound like you have read the whole thread that started with “How to Smear A Hero” at https://nicholasmead.com/2010/08/21/how-to-smear-a-hero/? That thread became too unwieldy with well over 1000 posts and Nicolas Mead rerouted the discussion here a few weeks ago.

Ulla, you’re really starting to piss me off. Firstly, please, do as Jungle Jim advised and read the ‘How To Smear A Hero’ thread *from the beginning*. There you will find the information that Ardin posted or tweeted about her encounters with Assange and later deleted from her account. Deleted after the accusations were made against Assange.

I am both a journalist and a (I hate this term) ‘sexual abuse survivor’. I was raped. What I believe they refer to as ‘regular rape’ in Sweden. That is, violently assaulted by a sadistic stranger who, it turned out, was a serial rapist and had done the same thing to twenty five other women. They eventually got him and I met the other women. They were some of the most traumatised individuals I’ve ever met. The rapist is now in prison for the next 30 years. I wouldn’t wish an experience like that on any woman, and I strenuously object when the term ‘rape’ is cheapened and reduced to something like AA and SW have used to accuse Assange. Yes, accuse. There have been NO charges made against him. Check your facts, if you’re actually interested in the reality of the situation.

I’m not alone. In my city, Melbourne, one of the protesters rallying for Assange also came out as a sexual abuse survivor and she also stated that using these accusations against Assange is specious and insulting to real victims. So please can you tone down your outraged rhetoric about all the ‘trauma’ these women endured? Read the accusations, then tell me how it was that the two women were still boasting, tweeting and texting about their encounters with Assange days after the events supposedly occurred.

When I first began reading and contributing to these threads (I started at the ‘How to smear’ one), I made a conscious decision to refrain from exposing my own experiences here. I didn’t think it was relevant. Now I do, thanks to you, Ulla.

I am a feminist, I’m a mother, I’m someone who has been violently assaulted and raped and I absolutely object to you trivialising my experience and those of the other women I grew to know whom this animal harmed, all in the name of some kind of vendetta you hold against Assange.

The report goes on to say that he has asked for Swedish prosecutors’ permission to disclose more ‘sensational’ information at Assange’s next hearing for a bail application this week, and he claims ‘If I am able to reveal what I know, everyone will realise this is all a charade,’ he said. ‘If I could tell the British courts, I suspect it would make extradition a moot point.”

However, it seems he can’t do this without permission as he would be disbarred.

Thanks for your kind words, skdadl. I usually keep that experience in a separate compartment of my brain. I hardly ever talk about it. I didn’t know how it would affect me to write about it, but it turns out that it was really, really hard. My hands were shaking so badly I could hardly type, and after I posted it and saw it there I started to cry and shake. It all came back. But I needed to say it. I needed to shake some of the people here (I’m looking at you, Ulla) into maybe acquiring some kind of perspective. I hope it was worth it.

I read today that the Women Against Rape Coalition in England is also protesting against Assange being held on these allegations. And Naomi Wolf’s piece gave me a grin. If only all, real rapists were hounded and pursued to the ends of the of the earth like they’ve hounded and pursued Assange. THAT would be a win.

I’d like to offer a perspective on this that I feel is much needed but currently overlooked in all the discussion I have read about WikiLeaks.

In particular, I hope it might help people like you, Ulla, who in my view are currently victims of their own naivety. At the very least, if it doesn’t leave you feeling a little conflicted, I’d suggest you might not be as open minded about these events as you like to think.

Because you see, I am a woman. I am a feminist. And I am also a whistleblower.

I also happen to be Australian. But that is just a happy coincidence. I say “happy” because until Julian Assange came along, I have felt like a non-citizen in my own country ever since I realized I had inadvertently taken on the role of whistleblower. Now, for the first time in 5 years, I feel like I haven’t been entirely abandoned by all my fellow country men and women. I have sat in front of my computer the last few weeks variously feeling proud, frightened for and sometimes weeping for Julian Assange.

Because he is the first person willing to stand up for me. It doesn’t matter whether or not WL’s champions my own case. Just that finally someone is prepared to do what is necessary and risk all for justice, transparency and accountability. When I blew the whistle and turned around to see who was behind me, there was no one there. Trust me, you don’t know the meaning of loneliness until you’ve been a whistleblower. Now, finally, someone has my back and the depth of gratitude I feel for that is inexpressible.

I’m afraid you’ll probably have to just take my word for it that I’m a whistleblower. I’m happy to prove it to you. But these days, I have some fairly strict requirements before I’ll make the effort to do that. Basically my conditions are that you would have to thoroughly review all the documents regarding my case and do whatever research is necessary to make a rational, objective assessment of it. Needless to say, that would require you to look at literally hundreds of pages of documents and either have or seek appropriate advice about all the relevant aspects of Australian law.

IOW, you would have to do what WikilLeaks is trying to. But I am not here to prove my own case one way or the other. In terms of the comments I want to make all you really need to do is countenance the possibility that I may really be what I say I am.

I do not intend to engage with you Ulla. Your comments are distressing to me at a deeply personal level. And at this point in time, I do not need any more unnecessary distress. This post may be somewhat disjointed. There is so much I’d like to say, it is difficult to focus on the most salient points.

Besides, like most whistleblowers the result of my efforts was to be so thoroughly crushed by the government authorities I was dealing with that I am now the first to admit I am what can only be described as “damaged goods”. A hollow shell of a human being whose spirit has been crushed, who is more bitter and twisted than I ever imagined possible, who has had everything that mattered to me, including a sense of my own truth, taken from me.

Ironically, I have long thought that how I feel from the sustained attack I endured after blowing the whistle is best compared to how it feels to be raped. Or at least how I imagine it feels as I’ve never been physically raped. I often describe what was done to me as having been “mind fucked”. These are the only words that adequately convey the overwhelming sense of violation. I now suffer Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of the events I became embroiled in which also included trumped up charges against me and a brief period in custody.

At some points, particularly after that incident, I have even lapsed into irrational behavior usually associated with victims of rape. Specifically, I went through a period of showering 6 or 7 times a day in an effort to wash their “filth” off me. But as I think John Lennon once said, “you can’t fight an enemy that has outposts in your head.”

You don’t need to be Julian Assange or release US diplomatic cables for them to go absolutely apeshit.

I am most impressed by your blog Mr Mead. I came here before JA’s arrest because, although I was deeply suspicious of the sexual assault allegations from the outset, I have and will always question everything as far as possible. While the scrutiny you and other posters have put the allegations under (no not charges Ulla) does not prove JA’s innocence, it is sufficiently robust for me to come to the conclusion they are most likely one of the textbook attempts used to discredit whistleblowers by those who would seek to silence us.

So to get the ball rolling here are some disjointed thoughts on the situation.

I would urge you all to read whistleblower’s stories and what is done to whistleblowers. You could do worse than start here:

If the stories of other whistleblowers and Brian Martin’s analyses on the techniques used to suppress dissent and stifle public outrage don’t sufficiently demonstrate strikingly similar patterns of behavior when it comes to the ways whistleblowers are dealt with *and* if they don’t strike you as chillingly like what is happening to Julian Assange, I do not know how to convince you.

You may note by comparing the two sites that there is some dispute among whistleblowers as to whether they should fight their battles through the “proper channels” (the view of the current head of Whistleblowers Australia) or whether they should employ other tactics (the view of Brian Martin). I am an adherent of the latter view and I think Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are too.

Indeed, WL’s approach suggests to me that they have done their homework when it comes to whistleblowing. It was probably about 3 years ago that I came to the conclusion that pretty much exactly what WL is now doing is the only way. As Brian Martin notes, one study of whistleblowers found that in only one out of ten cases did whistleblowers achieve any justice through formal channels such as courts and the like. Unfortunately, I did not have the knowledge and skills to do what WL is doing.

After my arrest, having been told I had been unlawfully detained, my family offered to pay whatever it cost for a lawyer to get to the bottom of the matter. But not even money could tempt them to do so. Eventually, one of them was honest enough to tell me that I was unlikely to find someone to represent me in the city (more of a large town) where I live because “it’s too political and everybody cares about their careers too much”.

My one concern for Julian in particular as well as other WL workers is that they may have underestimated the zeal with which those who oppose them will try to silence them. I felt this particularly after reading JA and his lawyers were surprised that he did not get bail. I think it extraordinary he was not granted bail but I was not surprised. Unless the “powers-that-be” for want of a better name think their current approach is backfiring, I do not expect him to get bail. And I am deeply fearful of how this will end for JA personally.

But back to Ulla. If you look at Brian Martin’s web site, you’ll see that anything to do with sexual allegations is one of the whistleblowers’ enemies favorite tactics. Indeed, in my own case I started to feel like they were obsessed with sex. My situation really started as a suppression of dissent issue and evolved into a whistleblowing one because of the tactics used against me.

I was a student at an educational institution and I found myself pitted against one of my teachers. Without going into detail, I knew this teacher was not behind the allegations he was supposedly making against me but really my head of department. The latter, a middle aged man, was both a nasty bully and also liked to sleep with his 18 year old students in return for academic favors (I was a mature age student and in my mid forties at the time). Just to make the situation even more unpleasant, he seemed to prefer the students who looked like they were only 15.

Myself and the teacher who they claimed was making the allegations against me were kept strictly separated. I cannot emphasize enough the extent to which divide and conquer is used to try and silence whistleblowers. In my case, the senior administrators (mostly women) who took over the handling of the matter first tried to make my teacher believe that I had made allegations of sexual harassment against him and then tried to do the reverse.

Realizing this, I had no choice but to approach the teacher directly in order to warn him what they were up to. To both our credits, we both refused to buy into the ploy. But my approach to him was “perceived” (their word) to be harassment and intimidation on my part. Eventually (despite my best efforts) they used this allegation to obtain what is known as a Workplace Protection Order against me. This is the same as what is variously known by names such as restraining orders in other jurisdictions. These type of orders are more commonly used in domestic violence situations.

No allegation of violence was ever made against me, I have no history of violence and had no criminal history before these events. They just insinuated, over many months, that I was in some vague way violent, mostly without my knowledge. No one ever questioned what sort of serious threat a middle aged woman might be to first a grown man and then 33 other grown men and women.

Having once been a victim of domestic violence who had to take out a restraining order against a man, the way they used the same legislation designed to protect domestic violence victims, sickens me. I am not saying women are never violent. But that a woman with my history could have a Protection Order imposed on her without a shred of evidence being presented of any attempt at or threat of physical violence being presented, is perverse in the extreme.

Especially when you consider that 6 months before they applied for the Protection Order or even alleged I had harassed and intimidated the teacher, I made a formal bullying complaint against my Head of Department. This complaint was forwarded back to my Faculty (which very conveniently meant the bully then knew of it) and I never heard another word about it despite my repeated requests to have it addressed.

I also raised my concerns about my Head of Department’s behavior toward female students. I did not think I was in a position to make a sexual harassment complaint because, while I had witnessed his inappropriate behavior towards other students, I had never been the victim of it. Realizing very early on what was really going on, I could have made a false claim of sexual harassment against my Head of Department in an effort to try to save myself. But we whistleblowers are always too honest for our own good. If I had my time over though, I’m not sure I would be so honest again.

Most of what was being documented about me was hidden from me over a period of 8 months. I eventually obtained the documents under FOI even though under our Privacy Act I should not have had to go through this process. Suffice to say that what they contained still makes me physically ill to read. Had I known what my Head of Department was saying and that he was still involved after I made the bullying complaint against him (I was led to believe he had been removed from the situation) I would have at least sought a Protection Order against him or even gone to the police and made a complaint of stalking. The documents revealed that, behind the scenes, he was pursuing me like a rabid dog and his malice and anger towards me literally drips off the page in the emails he wrote at the time.

The documents also revealed that the educational institution had made inquiries about my work as a life drawing model – ie. sitting nude for art classes. This had nothing to do with them. They obtained the information from an officer who worked at the court after the Protection Order had been granted. Both parties are subject to the Protection Order. Despite the fact their enquiries about my modelling work constituted a breach of the order, my attempts to have it addressed were repeatedly silenced by the courts.

That they had been enquiring about this without my knowledge creeped me out but I could not work out what they had hoped to achieve by it until the head of Whistleblowers Australia explained it was intended as sexual intimidation – creeping me out was its very purpose.

Finally, on the matter of Daniel . I am extremely suspicious of this development. I do not know if I will meet WikiLeaks’ requirements when they reopen their submission line. But as a whistleblower, I would not touch a site that did not publish the documents with a barge pole, as OpenLeaks proposes to do.

You see among the many incriminating documents I finally obtained was an email between public servants discussing how they could prevent me “going to the press”. You’d think that would be enough to at least get a journalist to look at your claims wouldn’t you? But no. A couple of times my story was almost picked up by reporters but they both backed away from it. Most likely because, like many whistleblowing stories, it is too complicated and lengthy for the modern media’s 24 hour news cycle to deal with. That is the other great thing about WL. It encourages a return to investigative journalism. But the fact most traditional media outlets are owned by multinational corporations, even just the fact that they may get a lot of revenue from government advertising, cannot be overlooked as a threat to the media’s independence.

But a site that doesn’t publish the documents? No thanks. That means relying on the traditional media alone to make judgements as to what is in the public interest. The media watches the government but who will watch the media?

Us, of course. All of us.

That is why I am Julian Assange. You are Julian Assange. We must all be Julian Assange. At least you must if you believe in nothing more subversive than transparency and accountability of *all* governments.

Anyway, I’m sorry to ramble on. I know it does my case no good. I just think the debate needs to focus on whistleblowing more and, as much as anything else, to raise consciousness about how whistleblowers are dealt with, how frighteningly similar all our cases are including JA’s current predicament, and how best to fight the forces that oppose us.

“All it needs for evil to flourish is for people of good will to do nothing.”
– Edmund Burke

Ulla, I believe you have a bias about these two women. (understatement I know) I suspect you are at least an acquaintance, and I have suspected this for a long time.

It is either your affilation to the party of one of these women or you have some other agenda here. Obviously, you are interested in this Wikileaks matter enough to post in this excellent blog. However you do not seem to appreciate the magnitude of what is at stake here. And this creates a conflict in my mind regarding your purpose here. Is it to try to exonerate or level the playing field for these women? Why would you even want to without reading all of the details in the background of this matter?

See…. the problem for Ardin and Sophia is simply this: They were dumb enough to put their personal information out on the internet along with publicising their exploits with JA after their alledged “rapes and molestations” and didn’t realise that the rest of the world would capture these words as files when they tried to have them removed after going to the police. The internet never forgets. Unless you use unusual influence with regard to the Wayback Machine. Which is what Sophia was able to achieve within a short period of time. Which makes Sophia very suspect .. very suspect indeed.

Concerning your difficulty in finding a lawyer with the guts to represent you: I hope Slater and Gordon are not one of the firms who backed off taking your case. They have a top reputation for taking on the “too hard” cases against institutional bullies, and have delighted in doing so.

I will have to check but IIRC, Slater and Gordon were a firm recommended to me by a psychologist I saw. She started her consultation with me by announcing that she knew what the educational institution I was dealing with was like, that she had appeared as an expert witness against them in court before, and that I would need an out-of-town lawyer (echoing what the solicitor who I’d already seen and who’d told me it was too political for anyone to take on in my local area had said). She specifically referred me to their Sydney office even though they have a branch in Canberra.

Anyway, I contacted the firm and they were indeed very supportive and the guy I spoke with said he would meet with me the next time he visited Canberra.

But in the meantime I discovered that the Legal Aid (Government) lawyer who had represented me and convinced me to consent to the Protection Order was the daughter of a well-known Federal ALP politician (I guess I better not mention names). I had been suspicious of her at the time and immediately contacted other lawyers after I consented to the order only to be told by all of them that consenting to the order was “the worst advice she could have given me”.

Trouble is, I tried to raise my concerns about what was going on with her father a couple of months *before* she came to represent me (he used to be a Federal MP for an ACT HofR seat – you should be able to join the dots). But I didn’t make the connection between him and that it was his daughter who had been appointed as my Legal Aid lawyer until about a year later. Of course, it doesn’t prove I was set up with his daughter as my lawyer or that she was told to purposely give me “the worst advice she could have given me”. But then it’s not the sort of thing anybody’s likely to admit. (To their credit, the local Liberals believe I was set up – no I am not a Lib, my politics are well and truly left wing.)

I blogged about the connection between the two quite intentionally because I suspected the local ALP politicians involved were following my blog at this stage and I already knew they were involved in influencing various people. Next time I saw the psychologist, I told her what I had discovered about the link between the Federal ALP MP and the Legal Aid lawyer I’d been assigned.

She freaked, immediately ended the consultation saying she had to go and pick up her son only 10 minutes into a 1 hour consultation. She then dropped me and all her other clients and was never seen at the practice again. Next time I contacted the law firm, they were no longer interested. I will go back through my notes and check if was S & G. BTW the Federal ALP politician involved is one of the ones mentioned in the cables who had a “special” relationship with the US embassy and who regularly reported to them about party political matters (not Arbib).

Also had the ACT Law Society agree to take on the case on a pro bono basis only to have the lawyer who decided that (from Clayton Utz) mysteriously removed from his position as head of the pro bono committee a week later. The Law Society then withdrew its offer of pro bono support.

I’m actually quite conflicted about what to do at the moment. My posts don’t demonstrate how serious the dirt I have is on some of them but it’s not inconceivable that what I know could indirectly help WL insofar as it is very embarrassing for the ALP. For instance, I have a very strong case to suggest the Commonwealth Ombudsman was subject to political influence

The educational institution tried to prevent me getting the record under FOI of a phone conversation b/t them and the Ombudsman in which they flatly refuse to answer the Ombudsman’s questions. When the latter asked them why they would not answer, the education institution spokesperson replied simply “due to the legality of the answer”. The phone conversation also establishes, prima facie, that the educational institution lied to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s Office did not agree to exempt the phone conversation under FOI but that was all they did for me. At one point I said to the guy from the Ombudsman’s Office, “You’ve been knobbled (ie. influenced) by the minister haven’t you?” I received a big fat silence in reply.

It gets better. If you know anything about Oz politics, then you might get a smile out of knowing there is a forged email involved as well.

I hoped Peter Kemp might still be tuning in to this thread and have a suggestion of someone who might have a look at the matter. Other than seeing if WikiLeaks would accept it as a submission, I’d pretty much given up on ever getting any justice. But since the whole WL thing has blown up I’ve been feeling like I should try because I can see how it might help especially given Gillard’s and McLelland’s attitude to JA. If you have any advice/contacts I’d be interested. What’s more there is a second person who contacted me with dirt on the educational institution. They have also been threatened with a Protection Order if they don’t drop their enquiries (which include photos of a teacher and student in flagrante delectico (sp?) so to speak. I have the photos.)

I should point out I used to work in the Commonwealth Public Service and was specifically trained in fraud detection. That’s how I found myself in this position. It also means I kept very careful documentation and tried to set them up wherever possible.

I intentionally breached the Protection Order stupidly thinking that would have to force them to give me a hearing and the truth would come out. (Silly me). But when I breached it, I did so with a video camera (I was a Media Production student after all :D). You can see how violent I am not and what I did to end up with a criminal conviction here:

This is an edited down “joke” version that I put together for a bunch of übergeeks I know through a forum I’ve been a member of for many years. We have a private place to talk and as the events were unfolding they were advising me on a lot of the tech-type issues that came up such as how to fake an email. I should also add in my own defence and in case I’m identified from other stuff I’ve put on the net, that I have sometimes been my own worst enemy. But as I said, until WL came along, whistleblowing was a helluva lonely business.

One thing that frustrates me at the moment is that the docs I have show how outrageously they can act and still get away with it. Indeed, the more outlandish their tactics become the less anybody believes you. Your allegations are simply dismissed out-of-hand as too “far-fetched” without anybody even bothering to look at a single piece of evidence.

As you can see, I was onto the pirate même just like WL! LOL What can I say, great minds think alike. 😉

I’ll just briefly add that the bullying stuff isn’t my main concern ATM. I focussed on that initially to challenge Ulla’s preconceptions. It’s the criminal offenses they committed to cover up and deflect the bullying allegations. I prove that and the two most senior ACT ALP politicians are automatically implicated.

Then, even ignoring the Federal politician and his lawyer daughter, there’s all the strange goings on with the courts. I pushed the matter as far as the ACT Supreme Court myself. In relation to just some of the extremely unusual things that happened along the way, the head of Whistleblowers Australia said to me, “oh the see you as really dangerous.”

If none of you take anything else from my comments but the following, I’ll be happy.

Do not assume JA is going to get a fair trial anywhere. I cannot emphasize this enough. Even if you right me off as a nutter and crazy conspiracy theorist, I point you to lawyer, Peter Kemp’s comment from above:

“Where the extradition case is forced on by Assange’s lawyers against deliberate delays, remember it’s not that difficult for authorities to adjust judges rosters to find “amenable” judges.”

Start wrapping your heads around the idea now that your judicial systems might not be nearly as indepedent as you think.

The Anonymous post was made by me as a reply to Sidd Reader. I was using another browser and forgot a signature, that’s all.

Various allegations have been made to discredit what the two women told the police. These allegations started right away when the issue about Julian Assange having had something of a sexual misconduct in Sweden was published in Expressen and then elsewhere worldwide.

What many people wanted to do was to find evidence – any evidence – to point to the two women lying about rape. And so various stories began to emerge. Foul language was used to discredit the women. People wrote about their own fantasies about what in their mind must have happened there – in order to make Julian the victim and the women the guilty.

After a while some of the stories started to have a life on their own.

It is still being repeated that Julian only had consensual sex with the women. Even though, if we bother to pay any attention to the facts, that simply isn’t true. What the women told the police wasn’t a description of consensual sex. But it was the contrary: nonconsensual sex aka rape or molestation or assault or whatever word is being used to describe nonconsensual.

Ah yes, the two tweets that Anna Ardin deleted from her twitter. Used as evidence that the two women couldn’t have been molested by Assange, that they must have lied about it. Maybe this is even evidence for the claim that the women were boasting online about sexual conquest of Julian Assange days afterwards?

It’s what you want to believe, isn’t it. And you don’t like dissent, do you. You would rather see me out of here, wouldn’t you.

Oh there is more, but I will let you do your own digging. However, she doesn’t sound terribly “molested” here does she… ?
And I’m still wondering about your affiliation almost as much as I’m wondering what the new evidence JA’s lawyer Horting has:

So much suffering the supporters have gone through, so much anguish the insiders have endured and now we have JA in a jail cell.. waiting…
That doesn’t even begin to address the millions of dollars that will be spent by various courts, lawyers and media concerned with this issue.. and while all of this has happened with its subsequent waiting Anonymous and its legion are taking revenge against companies which will cost millions in lost revenue.

what is the word— my sympathies and understanding. I tend to be hypervigilant and a light sleeper and strong … so a lot of what allegedly transpired just doesn’t compute for me.

Re: Domscheit-Berg — I don’t consider him a traitor either … that may change with the book but we’ll see.

I saw a quote from him that he had never known about the cables and is very happy he left when he did …

In all young and growing businesses there are differences of opinions and different visions. I’m glad he decided to move on. I just wish he — would actually — move on. I get that he does not approve, in fact sternly disapproves of Julian’s high profile … and he strongly disapproves of the focus confronting dangerous entities … so what would he have done?

I’d like to know if he was part of the Wikileak Insiders emailing complaints to Cryptome … and if he knows if those “Wikileak Insiders” were in fact Wikileak insiders … y’know?

About Hurtig’s claim: a possibility. We learned on the last thread that the prosecutors had interviewed several friends and contacts of JA’s in Stockholm as “witnesses.” I remember that b/c at the time, admin and I had an exchange about it — I reacted to that as taking hearsay evidence, and admin said it might be more. I’ve thought about that, and now I think so too.

In spite of what Ulla says, AA talked a lot both before and after SW made that fateful phone call to her. She wrote to Rebellen, to her blog, and she tweeted. She also apparently talked to people in Stockholm. The last may be what Hurtig is talking about.

AA also organized her fellows at Rebellen to make fairly vicious attacks on JA, at a time when he could not speak — well, he hasn’t been able to respond ever. That’s one of the reasons that some Swedes decided to look into what she was doing.

tomi, I agree with your line some distance above that, even though AA is the noisemaker, the fact that SW is such a cipher raises questions too. I’ve always thought that. If you go back through the timeline, she initiated every contact with JA and AA, with one possible exception that may be a lie, which might be why JA offered up his phone.

Margie, Peter Kemp is now an editor at WL Central — here is his first blogpost there:

@whatistheword — your note moved me profoundly, first left me speechless, eventually reinvigorated. Thank you for such a constructive individual perspective. All my (virtual) sympathy and encouragement.

@margie — don’t give up, but choose your battle(s) carefully, consider the tradeoffs. No one can “fix” the entire planet… btw thanks for the links.

Do all of the media partners already have possession of all of the cables? and are they in some way coordinating with each other as to which are “developed” or “fleshed out”?

I think I know that for the most part (but not necessarily exclusively) Wikileaks is adding “developed” cables to the available data base as or after those cables are published by the media partners.

Only a day or so ago, I was surprised to discover that Wikileaks also has Wikileaks-authored-articles about cables as well — very good, too. Since I had not known they were there, I had not looked there before.

I’ve poked around various sites to try to ascertain if all of the cables are ALREADY in the possession of the media partners or if they are being doled out to them in batches.

I’m not sure exactly who controlsthe number of cables released daily — or to whom those ~80 are released, since I think there’s a backward greenlight for release generally from the media partners TO wikileaks. Obviously I’m confused at this point, but can’t seem to find an FAQ with this information.

Anonymouse — yeah, I had forgotten about that video snippet but it struck me also at the time — because 400,000 is such an enormous number — but the Iraqi war logs was 391832 documents. LBIJ was very involved in that roll out, so I’m guessing that’s probably what he meant. (That video is confusing at times — jumping all over in time identified only by Julian’s hair, lengths and colors)

I was thinking they were releasing batches to the media partners … who were then “fleshing out” the stories, perhaps (?) in coordination, some stories being worthy of analysis by several medial partners, others more likely to be analyzed by one partner, with that report reprinted elsewhere … which would lessen redundancy and minimally the manpower commitment,.

If the entirety of the cables had been released to the media partners already, wouldn’t (I have no idea how much) some of the insurance file thereby be not only “mirrored” but unecrypted and available? I know one person who downloaded it as soon as it went up … I downloaded it over a month ago — I think my friend and I download the “same” file, that there are not various versions and it has not be “updated”

Thought: It may be that the cables were released to the media partners in encrypted bundles and the keys to the “time-released” bundles are being meted out. If all cables were released at once, there is risk that a media partner wouldn’t then cherry pick or otherwise try to gain advantage by having the bestest, mostest coverage of the biggest stories.

Julian likes his dramatics and subterfuge (and doesn’t always tell the whole truth, I’ve noticed), however, I’ve run into people who believe that he is “blackmailing” the United States with this insurance file … and god knows John Young keeps hinting darkly about extortion and/or other types of payoffs. However, I think this is deeply unlikely since I think they might well jeopardize Wikileaks legally and ethically. Julian’s not dumb …

The person telling me this seemed emphatic and is usually reliable and I could not verify it either way — I really found zero logistical coordination information (sensible lack of transparency that, imho) —

correction — the person who told me that all the cables had been released to the media is usually reliable — the person hyperventilating about Wikileaks “blackmailing” or “exorting” the United States, needless to say is an idiot.

The main item of interest is Stephens’ claim that a secretly empaneled grand jury has been convened in Alexandria (near Washington DC) to investigate possible charges against Assange. Stephens also claims the Swedes will defer its interest in the case to the US if it lodges an extradition request (presumably if Assange is in their custody). Also, it seems that the recent cyber attacks on Wikileaks were undertaken by Russia and China, not the USA.

Jungle Jim: ‘dobbed’. I think you just outed yourself as an Aussie :).

I know this link has been posted before, but it’s worth reading, so I’m posting it again: http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/09/rundle-r-pe-case-complainant-has-left-sweden-may-have-ceased-co-operating/ It’s the one about Ardin possibly having ceased co-operating with Swedish authorities and it gives the details of a tweet she made against Mastercard, Paypal, et al. In Swedish, it’s this: “Mastercard, Visa och paypal — skärp er, nu!”, with an earlier version that went: ”mastercard, visa och paypal – skärp er för satan!” Some readers in the comments thread have given various translations for these statements, but they all seem to agree that Ardin is angry at these corporations and expressing that outrage here. I know there are some Swedish speakers in this thread, so maybe we could get an accurate translation?

Ardin is a public figure, a politician. Therefore, her life and her behaviour should be open to public scrutiny. If she wants people to vote for her, they should know who she is. That’s the way politics works, no? If she’s got nothing to hide, she shouldn’t mind the scrutiny. I agree that some have vilified her and the other woman in horrible terms, but I’m afraid whoever decided to leak the rape allegations to a tabloid newspaper is partly responsible for that.

And the women themselves must share some responsibility: they voluntarily went public with their stories quite early on. Possibly they didn’t fully comprehend what the reaction would be to their published accusations against Assange, but to suggest that Ardin could be so unaware of the workings of the media as to be surprised and shocked by the backlash is in the realm of fantasy. She just doesn’t strike me as that naive.

And I know that comparisons are odious and all that, but the horrible vilification the women have received in certain quarters is insignificant when compared to what these allegations have done to Assange. His name is smeared forever, whatever the outcome of the eventual trial – if there is one. If he’s even ever charged.

As I think I understand it, the Swedish judiciary can go ahead prosecuting someone for rape even if the complainant does not wish them to. But if Ardin really didn’t want this to go on, couldn’t she just drop her accusations? Or doesn’t that count in Sweden? Please enlighten me.

Indeed yrs trly is a true blue fair dinkum Aussie right down to me New Australian mum ‘n dad, and one that’s peeved at the wallopers trying to nail our jolly swagman (eerie similarities there BTW…check the lyrics)

In particular, there’s a comment by the women’s lawyer, Borgstrom, which, even though I’d read it before elsewhere, I still regard with outrage and incredulity. It’s where he says to enquiring reporters that the women ”aren’t jurists. They don’t know what rape is.”

Excuse me? A self-proclaimed feminist lawyer informs the media that his clients had to be *told* that they were raped? That persons better informed, better qualified than themselves will be the judge of what actually happened between them and Assange?

These are not intellectually disabled women, nor are they ignorant children whose Daddy Knows Best. They’re adults, in full possession of their faculties and of their bodies in the 21st century in a country that considers itself sexually enlightened. How can any woman who claims to be a feminist possibly continue to retain the services of this paternalistic, condescending, opportunistic man? Of all the insults directed at AA and SW since the allegations came to light, I’d say this one is one of the worst. How can they stand to be degraded in public like this by their own lawyer, to be represented by him as too dumb to know whether they’ve been raped or not? It’s incomprehensible to me.

I find Ardin’s tweets from Yanoun quite revealing. She seems to me to be revelling in the attention all this has brought her. A true politician, I suppose.

In this case, which grows more confusing to me by the day, it now seems that the most serious allegation, that of rape, has now switched from SW to Ardin. If she really does decide to stop co-operating, can the Swedish judiciary still proceed, even against her wishes? Could someone familiar with the Swedish legal system tell me how this works?

It seems to me that AA and SW are being treated like backward children whose authoritarian minders, for their own very dubious reasons, have decided that only *they* have the power to know what is in the women’s best interests. This is no form of feminism that I can recognise.

I noticed that about the accusations (never charges!) being chopped, changed and rearranged, with rape charges referring to first to Wilen, then both, then Ardin. Strange stuff.

Borgstrom’s patronising comments signal the long delays that have occurred, because if two women such as these (including an award winning former Gender Equity Officer at Upsala U) are unsure about whether they were raped, it must be a re-a-ally complicated thing to work on, and will take a long time to clarify. Presumably the complete inaction between 1 Sep and late November when the cables were released was gainfully occupied in studiously researching the complexity of rape law as nothing else seemed to happen in this time, except for the Swedish authorities permitting Assange to leave the country.

The intriguing feature of Rundle’s timeline is the question of what where the Swedish prosecution Authority doing between 1 September when Marianne Ny reopened the rape investigation under Sweden’s entrepreneurial prosecution system and 20 November when the arrest warrants were taken out to apprehend Assange after he’d been cleared by the authorities to leave the country. That’s almost three months of zero apparent activity with charges hanging over Assange’s head that he had tried to clear away while he was still in Sweden.

In fact by 18 September, Geoffrey Robertson had already stepped into the breach stating that the prosecution’s handling of the case constituted a breach of Assange’s human rights that Robertson had no doubt would be rectified and compensated by the European Court of Human Rights.

The suspicion that all these delays are a holding action designed to keep Assange legally encapsulated would have to be entertained.

That the women allow themselves to be used in this fashion, is as you say, incomprehensible, especially for a presumably self respecting feminist such as Ardin. Wilen seems to be an altogether elusive – even shadowy? – figure that no one seems to know anything about.

Even the baying misogynistic and mangy mongrels that have hitched their howls to this issue have not found out anything about Wilen.

Who is Wilen really?

Normally, this would be a presumptuous and improper question in a rape case, but I wonder if it is the case now?

“can the Swedish judiciary still proceed, even against her wishes? ”

This can occur in most countries I think. The Polanski case where the victim wanted nothing to do with the case 30 years after the fact shows that quite clearly. Maybe it’s true in Sweden, but hopefully someone can confirm it.

However, I would imagine that if the SPA proceeds with the case with or without the women’s consent(!), natural justice would require their presence in court. Again this depends upon how Swedish law operates, but natural justice does seem to be one of the bedrocks of western jurisprudence.

An interesting feature of Swedish rape laws is pointed out by Karin Axelsson of Women Against Rape, namely that while Sweden has twice the reportage of rape compared to any other European country, it has the lowest prosecution and conviction rates.

Where does feminism come into all this? Beats me. I’m coming to the conclusion that it’s akin to the liberal democratic values to which many western politicians give lip service while practicing conservative and neo-conservative politics and economics.

It seems Sweden pays lip service to feminism, but this is a veneer hiding something quite different. Besides the low prosecution and conviction rates, the male and publicly fervent feminist police chief that was convicted of aggravated rape, rape, assault, pimping, buying sex and attempting to buy sex is a case in point, but how typical this might be is another question: http://www.thelocal.se/30404/20101124/

Feminism comes into it in part because of the “not gonna take it” legacy of eons of domination and abuse and because of the more recent and unfortunately still current denigation of sexual violence on women — yes, it’s very hard not to become jaded and cynical by the highly publicized, all too frequent false rape/battery/other cases.

We all can and do have our own sexual history — men and women — and the sense memories there of.

There’s so much to these allegations and the ever-changing-story-so-far and the various “explanations” and excuses for the behavior of the Swedish authorities — it all become prevarication and obsfuscation when, as far as I can tell, it’s all various peoples’ fantasies… and there is a lot of (imho erroneous) identification going on — identification with Julian and, for too many women, with the “victims” …

Irrc, part of what started this whole ball rolling was the “mandatory investigation” which began when these women “consulted” the police … because of years of police telling women they were wasting their time or otherwise dismissing even inquiries, many jurisdictions now require that all “inquiries” be investigated … much as all apparent hang-up or otherwide uncompleted 911 (emergency dispatch number in the USA) calls MUST be followed up. My local sheriff’s office automatically calls back even on non-emergency calls (as I discovered when I hung up while it was ringing when I realized I had dialed the wrong office). Yeah, big brother actually is watching … and covering their own ass and liability much more than anything, but it’s a sticky web that’s easy to enter and often suprisingly hard to extricate from.

That’s why I keep asking if Sweden’s system permits prosecution without or even against the wishes of the “victims” … an insidious trend in many places. Kiss your autonomy good-bye.

In among the voices, you will hear a small but vocal and dedicated group of people insisting that all “rape” must be prosecuted even if the victims want no part of it … for the good of all … be very afraid. (demands for mandatory fixed sentences follow)

In Canada police and prosecutors are required to pursue cases of domestic abuse when they come to light, even against the wishes of the abused partner. That is less likely to happen in cases of sexual assault outside of coupledom, partly, one suspects, because the police still give complainants a fairly hard time when they first approach.

I agree with you, Jungle Jim, that Ny’s strange behaviour gives some force to the rumours we’re hearing of quiet chats behind the scenes between the U.S. and Sweden, whereby holding JA in Sweden would allow the U.S. to step in with a pre-emptive extradiction request. Those are just rumours still, but they get more believable by the day.

One of the tantalizing details, irrc, is that at least one, but quite possibly both of these women were well aware of the “mandatory investigation” and that the timing of their visit to the authorities (late Friday afternoon/evening) — and suggestions further that they knew who the person in charge then and over the weekend — was meant to maximize this effect in a way that a, for instance, Thursday afternoon visit would not … since the matter could be reviewed on the next working day which was Friday … True or not? I don’t know, but the theory was that the newspapers (one called Expressen personally) and other medial would have 24-36 hours to go-to-town before there could be any official settlement.

Did they just intend to knock Assange off his high horse temporarily with some bad publicity … or what? I’m doubtful they really wanted him threatened with 4 years in prison — or whatever it is now — don’t know — did they miscalculate?

“Despite the ease with wish Ardin could have made up false accusations, it is unlikely that Ardin is the honey-trapper because her clumsy attempts to remove her internet comments show her to be an amateur.”

Goes back to the professional wipe of Wilen’s internet presence, something that looks more than a little suspicious.

In any case, this could be anything, even bad luck as the commentator points out, BUT the suicide bombing in Stockholm becomes a much more sinister event:

“What’s more interesting is the recent suicide bombing in Sweden. The first ever to happen in that country. Now, if you were the U.S. government trying to manipulate public opinion in Sweden, how would you go about convincing them that U.S. cables should remain secret? What about a little terrorist incident to stir the bejesus out of them? Convince a middle eastern extremist who is being controlled by a human intelligence officer that he has been called upon to do his most loyal duty to Allah. Suddenly, secret cables seem like quite the way to go.

The U.S. wouldn’t be so stupid as to kill a citizen of an allied nation – not in this type of operation where the risk is so high. Well, they didn’t! No-one (apart from the bomber) was hurt in what investigators are already saying was a sophisticated job. A technical cinch to set up a bomb to only go off when it received a radio signal from a nearby observation post – make sure that no innocent civilians get in the way.

This one’s got U.S. govt interference written all over it.”

Let’s see if Sweden’s renowned freedom of speech laws start getting wound back as a result.

For me, there is no controversy concerning Wikileaks. The tipping point for why we need a war now is that the mainstream media became the enablers of political power. (Journalism students taught not to read souce information at Notre Dame?)

Frustrated journalists unable to speak facts to a public too dumbed down (or numbed) to register it anyways.

This has been going on a very long time I think.. Realising how sophisticated the world is at this, Adam Curtis does an excellent job of explaining in The Power of Nightmares and his other documentaries which are available online now.

One of the videos put out by Anonymous really impressed me:

It is from a poem by William Burroughs and it is online too:

My point is that this has been going on for so long, this not a battle you can fight by going along with “conventional wisdom”.

Okay, the judge granted the bail. 200.000 pounds were accepted, he has to wear an electric tag, his passport was taken away, he accpted curfew and has to say hello every day at 6 pm at the police station.

Okay — the Swedes have challenged bail … challenge will be decided in 48 hours … no release until then. Release was likely to be delayed a day or more as bail needs to be paid in CASH … and assembling that much CASH takes time — later afternoon over there and all that jazz.

The fact that Domscheit-Berg, in his own words, never knew about the cables (and is even more glad to have left when he did as a result) keeps richoceting around in my brain. Still overlooked in the Julian-is-imperious “damning” IM exchanges (which keep being reprinted without sourcing), it was clear that Domscheit-Berg was furious to have been kept in the dark and out of the loop wrt to the Iraq War Logs roll out.

Wired described it thus:

Key members of WikiLeaks were angered to learn last month that Assange had secretly provided media outlets with embargoed access to the vast database, under an arrangement similar to the one WikiLeaks made with three newspapers that released documents from the Afghanistan war in July. WikiLeaks is set to release the Iraq trove on Oct. 18, according to ex-staffers — far too early, in the view of some of them, to properly redact the names of U.S. collaborators and informants in Iraq.”

Rather than being simply unhappy with “recent events”, had Domscheit Berg and friends actually been attempting a coup, possibly starting the prior spring, which failed. Could S.W. and A.A., genuine “wikileaks supporters” , have been party to that?

I guess I’m just suspecting that relations between DD-B and JA had been less than ideal for quite a while before JA suspended DD-B and DD-B “quit” …

I wondered why he wasn’t further along with his ‘new site’ at when he announced he had “quit” (he apparently did not ever ask for review, but also somewhere, irrc, seemed miffed that no contact from JA had been forthcoming).

Then there were all those insane CCC/WH “we hate Julian” rumors — regardless of what might have been or actually be true — Assange appears to have emerged victorious with Wikileaks intact.

I have the impression (augmented by the recent VST video) that DD-B really believed himself much more essential to Wikileak that ensuing events have suggested …

The penny just dropped. I couldn’t figure out why the Swedes would continue to oppose bail when he wasn’t a meaningful flight risk, and when his bail conditions were so strict. I thought the Swedes were simply being stubborn, and defiantly showing how tough they were in the face of public opinion, and determined to catch their man yada yada.

The answer would seem IMO that they want him incommunicado.

Assange’s living conditions while he was in isolation was that he received only the one call from his mother…no internet, no phone calls, no mail – the prison even destroyed a copy of Time magazine with his photo on the cover sending him the empty envelope. How insulting is that.

So then, if the purpose of opposing bail is to keep him in isolation and out of touch with the world, then what springs to mind is that the Swedish prosecutors want to be seen doing their best to keep him isolated.

Question is: seen by whom?

Does this sound fanciful, like a conspiracy theory or otherwise silly?

“Unless the “powers-that-be” for want of a better name think their current approach is backfiring, I do not expect him to get bail.”

They’re trying to break him and other WL personnel psychologically. Read whistleblower’s stories and you too can become uncannily prescient about what is going to happen to him.

@JJ Yes they want him incommunicado. But the way they’ve done it (bail granted followed by Swedish appeal) also takes the heat off the British legal system. Makes it look like it’s all legit. Another thing the head of Whistleblowers Australia said to me that is important to understand in terms of the fact that Assange and anyone supporting him will sooner or later be accused of indulging in conspiracy theories, is that “it’s not a conspiracy, it’s a culture”.

Noboody has to make phone calls to judges saying “keep him locked up”. They know what is expected of them (maintain the status quo) and just do it.

OTOH, the extraordinary series of coincidences that always occur in whistleblower cases is never questioned. Experience has taught me that, when it comes to whistleblowing cases, the likelihood that any two or more events are “mere coincidence” drops dramatically.

Had he been refused bail again by the British court, the chance of a public outcry in the UK seemed much more likely than that happening once the Swedes get their hands on him.

What is wrong with bloody Sweden for chissakes? (Rhetorical question – no need to answer, I know what’s wrong with them.)

Although with only a reported 30 protesters at the court, I once again find myself wondering if “the people” really deserve the efforts and the risks whiistleblowers take on their behalf or whether they should just be left to stew in their own damn juices.

BTW I didn’t mention before that I also have a degree in History. This shows all the signs of being only the first small step in a very long battle that will be characterized by one step forward and two steps back like all real revolutions.

Likewise, Assange will be only the first in a long line of martyrs for the cause. And a martyr he shall be. Make no mistake about it.

I just hope it turns out to be worth it and that he and others don’t end up risking all for a population that is, at heart, self-serving, self-absorbed and undeserving of the freedoms they claim to cherish so much.

I think the 30 people was as many as were permitted to be in the court, and there were demonstrations outside the court. Besides Australia, there have been demonstrations in Spain, Netherlands and Latin America.

“I just hope it turns out to be worth it and that he and others don’t end up risking all for a population that is, at heart, self-serving, self-absorbed and undeserving of the freedoms they claim to cherish so much.”

It seems about 80-90% of people outside the USA support the work of Wikileaks. In the USA itself, about 70% of the population purportedly disapprove of Wikileaks’ actions. I’d say their opinions have probably been massaged by the fury of its leaders and the media treatment Cablegate has attracted.

I should clarify my earlier comments by admitting that technically JA has been granted bail but the effect is still the same as if he hadn’t been.

Thanks, Sidd Reader. Nice summary. Some of the things I’m puzzled by:

1. Why did everybody think Sweden wasn’t going to appeal before their apparent about face?

2. Who exactly the prosecutor is here? I assumed it would be someone from the UK Crown Prosecutor’s Office (or whatever they’re called) but it seems to be the Swedish prosecutor? I’m unclear as to how the Swedish prosecution can appeal a British arrest.

3. Just how unusual what seem to be JA’s incredibly onerous bail conditions are? I note there is a tweet that the median bail amount for sexual assaut charges in the US is $23,000.

@JJ re:

“I’d say their opinions have probably been massaged by the fury of its leaders and the media treatment Cablegate has attracted.

Funny I came across that when I was looking for ideas for a poster for tomorrow’s rally but interpreted it differently. Well actually, I interpreted it the same as you to begin with but on closer reading I thought what it was saying (satirically) was that JA is wanted for revealing the secrets of emperors with no clothes (ie. the heads of various national governments mentioned in the cables) who have responded by treating the rule of law with contempt. Or something along those lines.

In any case, I decided the message was too oblique and obscure.

ATM I’m keen on a poster that user that adage the courts are so fond of that “justice must not only be done but be *seen* to be done” but it’s a little too wordy.

While I’m heartened that support for JA in Oz seems to be the strongest anywhere, it’s so hard to tell how strong it is overall. One has to be careful not to see only what one wants to see. I’ve been trying to look at comments from a reasonably balanced cross section of the media and, while it could be worse, I would have hoped the heavy handed response might have produced a greater sense of outrage. I also feel that the turn out at the demos has been a little disappointing.

OTOH, I do have a vested and very personal interest so I’m prone to adopt a more negative view than perhaps is warranted.

Nevertheless, I think things will have to get much worse before they get better. JA seems to understand that people will only wake from their slumber when they see the horror. Just a pity it has to be at his expense. I’m reminded of a quote that I think is from Tom Robbins’ “Even Cowgirls Get The Blues”:

“The enemy is not men or women or society. The enemy is dullness of mind.”

I feel terrible for his mum. I remember how scared my poor old mum was when they did it to me (and damned if I know why the pigs had to be so aggressively rude to an 84 year old woman when I was in custody). Eventually, I told her I didn’t want her help because she was so frightened of what they were doing. I’m sure I’d have ended up with her death on my conscience otherwise.

At least I’m in the position of having had everything taken from me, so I’ve nothing left to lose. Ironic how in destroying you they make you completely invulnerable.

My post was poorly constructed – my bad. The poster that says it all was meant to sum up the whole situation with Assange and Wikileaks, as you surmise, not the preceding assertion about the US opinion polls.

I’ve noticed that police have no respect for the relatives of “perps” or even the relatives of possible perps. A few years ago, some Aboriginal friends of the family were visited by the police, an event that every Aboriginal family seems to experience sooner or later, and savagely bashed the matriarch of the family, a tiny and frail 85 year woman, for no other reason than demanding to know their reason for being there. So pigs is still pigs, and probably always will be (apologies to all members of the porcine species for taking their name in vain).

“Who exactly is the prosecutor here? ” Gemma Lindfield from the CPS on behalf of the Swedes acting under the European Arrest warrant. She was under instruction from the Swedish prosecutors to oppose bail, although the Swedes hadn’t provided the evidence required by the magistrate for this hearing.

“To put this in perspective, Mr Dewani is fighting extradition to South Africa where he is being accused of the murder of his newlywed wife in an allegedly staged car-jacking in a Cape Town township. He was out on bail immediately. Assange has a week and more to come banged up 23 hours a day, with no internet or TV, and little reading matter.”

Yet no matter how atypical, incompetent or irregular the handling of the case, all the powers tip toe around what’s becoming bleedingly obvious to the average punter, namely that this is a first class clusterf-ck from beginning to end, compounded by the volatile politics that have been unleashed by Wikileaks publication of the cables.

Damn. Not a subscriber to Crikey. Signed up for the free trial bu the first issue is the next weekday edition. Not to worry. I expect The Guardian or somewhere else will have an analysis tomorrow.

Oh it became pretty clear everybody involved in my arrest had been told to do everything possible to give me a hard time/scare the crap out of me. Besides, I told Stanhope, the DPP and various others 3 days before I breached the order of my intention to do so if they wouldn’t address the issues especially those involving criminal offences. So they had plenty of time to prepare.

They were still dumb enough to wait 2 days before they came knocking on my door though. Silly. Gave me plenty of time to upload all the footage safely to a friend in the US. But of course, normally such offences are dealt with by summons. That they came to my door at all was the first sign of trouble. If I hadn’t had a friend in high places to get me out, I half expect I’d still be locked away now, still asking to contact a lawyer, still being refused, etc. etc.

That’s the one saving grace about JA’s situation. World leaders appear to be just as dumb as the tools who run the ACT’s Kiddy Council.

Ah so my reading of the poster is correct. Yeah it is very clever. Just a little too deep for your average Oprah fan though, me thinks. And they’re the ones that need the consciousness raising. Once they tear themselves away from Hugh Jackman’s biceps……….

I read the comments above and somehow find Sweden is up to some mischief. Despite that Julian Assange was not arrested indicates that the prosecutors did not find hard evidence to charge him of any serious crimes.

As I have earlier on stated that these women had been hired by someone from within Wikileaks who knew Assange’s weakness for women to bring him down by allegations of rape. These women have played the game pretty well earlier on and kept Assange in the dark. Why I say this, is because Miss Willen was living with her American boyfriend in the apartment. Is it possible that she was hired to trap Assange?
I don’t believe that these women were raped, but rather are using the consensual act as a rape due to the various laws implemented by Sweden on “What implicates a rape?” They have taken advantage of the system to nail any and every action or move to be warranted as rape.

As for Assange, he has been held in U.K. and only time will tell whether it was for his own good or not. I for one believe that Assange needs a lot of time of introspection. It may sound that his work is protecting the innocent victims around the world who have died from these atrocious wars. Nonetheless, Assange needs to build internal character and that is not to hang around women in too many directions.

I hope his mother’s appearance might bring in some consolation to him. Every mother would unconditionally protect their children despite the dangers around. I wish Christine Assange best of luck.

As for Ulla, I am not sure why you would use any other monickers (anonymous) to respond on this thread? My gut feeling was that you might be an acquaintance of Ardin or Willen. Or I hope Ardin may not use your monicker and surprisingly respond on this thread. It is just a thought as these women have done so much damage and the world is watching.

As for tomi, I am not sure what you are referring to when you are warning Ulla and I that “your claims can have legal actions against you.” You have said enough on this thread than us. I am just catching up with the phrases on “charges” “molestation” “rape” “not charged next day” “arrested today” and so for writing charged or whatever, you have jumped on your guns to attack us. Tomi, have a life! Don’t act like you are an attorney on the blog.

As for Naomi Wolf, she has forgotten to report on what is going on inside the prisons of United States. There are 60,500 victims of rape in the United States and may be she needs to get busy in examining the impact of those rapes in the prison system such as HIV/AIDS, mental illnesses, suicidal ideation, cost on the taxpayers, and a cycle of violence in the society upon release. She is attacking Assange without any evidence. We might be frustrated by his silly actions, but I have never once claimed that he had raped and I am not here to judge him. Assange has a conscience and he can answer to himself and God his own actions. I can with confidence state that Assange is compassionate on the downtrodden and that is the suffering humanity of Iraq, Afghanistan, and others. His or others behind him have a goal to end such atrocities. Again, we are all humans and we examine his or others actions with scrutiny, because we have been lied constantly by politicians and leaders in the past. Therefore, the trust issue is zero nada. Only time will reveal genuine actions.

Whatistheword, I was touched by your tragic story. I think “rape” is demeaning to the soul and it is inherently an evil action. I am writing my thesis on eliminating the prison rapes at this point as I would like to see some reform within the prison walls. Rape should not be used as a control or as punishment on the prisoners or on any humans. I hope you will find healing as you share your story to others who have experienced similar violence.

I hope Assange can read the bible in the prison cell. That would do him good! Good luck!

“As for tomi, I am not sure what you are referring to when you are warning Ulla and I that “your claims can have legal actions against you.” You have said enough on this thread than us. I am just catching up with the phrases on “charges” “molestation” “rape” “not charged next day” “arrested today” and so for writing charged or whatever, you have jumped on your guns to attack us. Tomi, have a life! Don’t act like you are an attorney on the blog.”

Well… who are you to include yourself in a comment I made that was raised and documented already by other people .. Ardin?

And common sense is all that is needed to know if you remove evidence to the contrary after accusing someone legally, you are looking at legal action yourself.

Yeah.. Siboni… your attack above has made me feel petty and angry now and I’ll bite. I was posting my thoughts about AA and SW not you. Why are you including yourself in and attacking my posts?

I am a supporter of Assange and Wikileaks and I am not interested in the least in listening to your bible banging moralising about him and his sexual habits. He is a single man and he has every right to play the field even within a 24 hour space of time.
Where do you get off? And have you ever had a life?

From afar I have my doubts about Stephens. It seems, as if he really thought, he could walk in at the police station last week, ask for the state of affairs, say “Okay, as you can see, Julian is here!” and then walk away with Julian to
prepare the case.

“There is discussion of meeting up with police but we haven’t got to that point yet. Schedules have to be worked out. Their team has to be ready and we have to be ready. They have ten days to act on this warrant so there is time.”

So it was not really planned, to hand himself over – at least not that way. I don’t know about UK, but here in Germany the lawyer would have appeared alone with a certificate of authority to get the informations he needs.

I also find it strange, that he is talking about the role and threat of the US that way. It’s done in the forums and here either, but I would expect a lawyer with a different approach, i.e. talking about the judicial problems and pronounce, that he as lawyer will not let this happen just like that.

I think there is a reason, why Geoffrey Robertson was brought into the team and did the talking at the court.

I’m sure I’m not the only one thinking; trumped up charges, absurdity beyond the pale putting JA in abusive custody for the non-use of a rubber and we the people of this planet are helplessly standing by watching this take place. Victims yet again, all of us, of the perversion of the rule of law when and if it suits the suits….

Well… I know I’m not the only one who is thinking it is time to stop sucking up to, you can’t leak this, you might hurt that..
If the rules of law can be so absurd and bent for the powerful elite.. It is time to take off the gloves…

I’m not going to go through and pick out all the specific quotes I’m referring to. Suffice to say my comments are intended to try to stop the comments on an intelligent blog degenerating unnecessarily.

Firstly, I think people are becoming confused as we struggle to discuss this in English when it is clearly not the first language of some commenters. Unfortunately, we English speakers have forced our language on the rest of the world (OK the French try to do the same, rather unsuccessfully – that’s a joke). But that’s the way it is. However, maybe people should ensure they’ve understood correctly before jumping to conclusions.

Secondly, Siboni, Naomi Wolfe is not attacking Assange. She’s suspicious of the allegations precisely because they don’t gel with the way rape victims are usually treated. Her point that those pursuing the allegations are “pimping feminism” is an excellent one and one I hope Ulla might consider. It’s the divide and conquer strategy in another guise. I imagine those behind the rape allegations will be loving it that an added benefit of the tactic is that they turn women against men, women against women, and feminist against feminist.

I don’t know who Ulla is, I don’t care and I don’t think it matters. I just hope she isn’t a victim of dullness of mind. One of the things that has been lost in this thread that was extensively discussed in the original post here

is how the allegations ever became public in the first place as this would seem to be quite contrary to normal practice in Sweden. It is clear it was either the Swedish prosecutor or the women themselves who released the information to Expressen. Why Ulla seems so unconcerned about this, given it weakens both their chance of justice *and* JA’s right to a fair trial, is a mystery.

Thirdly, Sidd Reader, I have my doubts about Stevens and Robertson. Not because I think they’re not doing their best but because, as comments in this Guardian article point out

they are media and human rights lawyers and he may be better off with someone experienced in extradition and/or criminal law. Again this is frequently a problem for whistleblowers who find their cases straddling several areas of the law and most lawyers specialize in one area. In JA’s case this is further complicated because the matter straddles the laws of different countries as well as the EU. What a nightmare!

Hopefully, his lawyers are seeking advice from those with the experience they lack. As for why everyone announced he was to be released before the time for the Swedish prosecutors to appeal the bail decision was up, those articles don’t explain that point and I haven’t seen a good explanation of it. I suspect it was a combination of the media and JA’s lawyers jumping the gun.

But JA did give himself up voluntarily. It was just that there was extensive negotiation beforehand in an effort to avoid the inevitable media circus.

Finally, attacking the person (ad hominem attacks) in any internet forum are always a pointless hindrance to discussion regardless of who initiates the attack. Remember, the quality of any discussion depends upon the quality of the posts/comments. I posted here because the posts were, on the whole, intelligent, balanced, objective and civilized. I for one, would really like to see it stay that way.

— Karin Rosander, director of communications for Sweden’s prosecutor’s office, told the Guardian: “The decision was made by the British prosecutor. I got it confirmed by the CPS this morning that the decision to appeal the granting of bail was entirely a matter for the CPS. The Swedish prosecutors are not entitled to make decisions within Britain. It is entirely up to the British authorities to handle it.” —

@JJ Seems who’s calling the shots on bail is not quite as clear as that Crikey article may claim after all.

Surely with a case this sensitive featuring such a high profile person it would not only be preferable but incumbent upon the prosecutors of both countries to look like they knew what they were doing and not involved in some mad crazy scramble that appears to be constantly on the verge of degenerating into high farce.

They’re just playing ducks and drakes. The Brits have no legal interest in this beyond assisting Sweden under the Arrest Warrant, so the Swedish prosecutors are being disingenuous. The Swedes simply make their wishes known to the CPS.

To me, this doesn’t actually sound terribly strong … and it appears to be an attempt to work around other even worse (less drastic – expansion of espionage age /historically unlikely to be successful) prosecutorial options …

Well, if it’s ducks and drakes, the Swedish Prosecutors Office has just told a blatant lie to a Guardian reporter. Did you read Sidd Reader’s quote and follow the link above? That’s a quote from the Guardian’s article and their reporter spoke to the Swedish Prosecutor’s Office directly (am I the only one who, these days, finds it quite a novelty to find a quote in either the MSM or on the internet that can actually be attributed to a specific source?)

Interestingly, that’s at least the second lie one or other prosecutor has been caught out telling. At the last bail hearing the prosecution admitted their previous claim that JA entered the UK illegally was incorrect.

Thinking about what a farce it was becoming earlier today, surely any genuine rape victim would be livid by now at how the case has been handled. I mean the prosecution has had since August to dot all the Is and cross the Ts.

And unless one or both women released the details to the media, shouldn’t they be furious (and frightened) that they’d been identified especially given how high emotions are running? I know I was when a local web site populated by vigilante nut cases in Canberra published info that allowed me to be identified (at least I was until I found the real name of one of the site’s admins – who just happened to be a cop – in the long headers of an email he sent me and I published it on my blog. LOL)

I think if I had been a victim of even a violent sexual assault and I was in the position of these women, I’d be telling the prosecutor to forget the whole thing about now (some posts on this blog seem to suggest that’s not possible in Sweden but how could the case proceed if the victims effectively became hostile witnesses). If worse came to worst, I’d be contacting the media and saying I wanted no further part in it.

I certainly wouldn’t be the least bit happy about being IDed by name and photo all over the internet as well as having the prosecution blunder from one stuff-up to the next while my chance for justice and my reputation both disappeared down the shit chute to oblivion.

I didn’t make false allegations of sexual harassment even though there were some individuals who richly deserved it because it’s the sort of stuff that wrecks lives. Even if the allegations against JA were true, they’re not all that serious. Yet, at best, the people who are supposed to be representing these women have ensured these womens’ lives are going to be destroyed regardless of the outcome and in a way that is far more damaging than if they were raped but never reported it and simply tried to “get over it”.

That’s all based on giving the women the benefit of the doubt and assuming they’re telling the truth. Which, unfortunately, I can’t believe considering it from their perspective anymore than I can believe the whole thing is other than BS. The ring of truth isn’t just lacking. It’s MIA.

Amazing how with anything to do with whistleblowing the most outlandish scenarios are presented as believable and yet it’s the whistleblower who always gets accused of being the crazy conspiracy theorist.

I’ve been trying to figure out how they’re going to handle all these perplexing questions. My guess is they’re not. The allegations won’t be dropped. He’ll be removed to the US without the rape case ever being heard thereby wearing the label of “alleged rapist” as well as whatever trumped up charges the Yanks pin on him. Which probably means he’ll be going direct to the US from the UK………….I’d like to think they won’t get that past the great unwashed masses of either the UK or Sweden without a god almighty stink but sadly, history says they almost certainly will.

“The CPS spokesman stressed to me that this is usual practice in extradition cases. The CPS makes all decisions on bail, apparently. That is in line with article 12 of the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision.”

The espionage case the US is trying to build against Assange may well result from leaning on Bradley Manning to testify that he conspired with Assange. Manning has been held in solitary confinement in Quantico for the last 5 months, spending 23 hours out of 24 in his cell, without pillow or blankets, and forbidden to exercise. He hasn’t been charged and the conditions he’s held in constitute torture.

This young man may well be placed in the invidious position of being asked to falsely implicate Assange to provide the US with the pretext for an extradition. What’s apposite to this is that the US-UK extradition treaty requires no burden of proof or evidence for the US to demand extradition, although one would expect that some reasoning back by law would be required before the UK allowed extradition. Maybe.

Just an automatic reflexive appeal of any judgement other than that desired … your tax dollars at work ..

I’m amaze the Swedish people have taken to the streets about the resources being wasted in an ongoing basis in this case … oh, and Assange’s team has still not been provided the suspiciouisly withheld materials ..

“I’m amaze the Swedish people have taken to the streets about the resources being wasted in an ongoing basis in this case”

If I’m understanding you correctly and you’re saying you’re amazed Swedes have taken to the streets protesting what this case is costing them, I’m not. Surprised that is. Especially not now it’s being reported they claim not to have opposed bail from the start. Only problem is that maybe they should have be protesting outside Downing St or Westminister.

I’ve decided I have to donate to WikiLeaks because if Hollywood produced stuff like this, I would glady pay for it.

I think both the UK and Swedish Prosecutions have been quite blatently subject to political influence. First I thought Sweden had gotten cold feet at the last moment. Then I thought they’d gone all leaky and whistleblowery. In the end, I’ve decided they’ve cracked. Snapped under the pressure. We’ve broken Sweden, people.

I think that after a week or so of global flaming (and this is only partly tongue in cheek) Sweden has come apart at the seams. Paraphrasing the information that came out in the 1

“Not our appeal. Nothin’ to do with us.”
(At best, an unnecessary admission.)

“Bail? Meh! Who cares?”
(Moving into Too Much Information Territory)
“OK so we never opposed bail even the first time. What of it?”
(Not guilty on grounds of insanity)

After my post here, next day, I read Naomi Wolf’s recent article on the “negligence of Sweden to charge Assange…..,” etc., I am not sure if she is supporting Assange or indecisive about Sweden’s role in hanging Assange one way or other by using the women’s complaints on rape or whether it is politically motivated.

I realize that we bloggers tend to be emotional, because of what wikileak represents to most – an organization that exposed U.S. cables. Without digging further who, what, and why questions asked, it is dangerous to just form opinions. I am guilty of that too, but have learned to keep some reservations or taking an inductive approach.

About Ulla, I am not sure who she is. We can simply guess, because of her role in defending these women and nailing Assange. Ulla could be Willen’s boyfriend or some friend or anybody. Or she is knowledgeable about Wikileak and Assange’s role.

Tomi, you are naive, because if you are not spiritual minded, then you are standing on a slippery ground and you don’t even know what hit you next.. If I know my bible and I walk straight with a pure conscience, I am standing on a solid ground. Nobody can shake my faith or my future.
If Assange is warning people about U.S. cables, then I have every right to tell Assange about his folly, lack of faith, and how to fix it.

Why I countered Assange’s lifestyle, because it clearly showed that he was not serious with his agenda even if he was hired to do the bidding. If he was serious, he would never flirt or go near these women. The present drama of how he got trapped indicates that he is not really trained to be the boss of wikileak. This angered most associates of wikileak as Assange on the other hand totally destroyed their stand in Sweden or in U.S.

By the way, tomi, Wikileak is an organization that exposed the cables on U.S. war details. We are not sure if these cables were altered or genuine to create the sensationalism around the world. Or may be I should call the word, “Blackmail.” After researching the news outlet, I have a rather distorted view on wikileak. What if the interested wikileak group have hired Assange, because he was a prior hacker and to be the front man in exposing the cables? What if one country or group of people are behind the exposure to blackmail U.S. into meeting their demands? For instance, it could be furtherance of a war or one world order. We hear that Sweden has sent 500 troops of their own to Afghanistan and working along with the U.S. Check the website:

I think America is divided in their decision making whether Assange is innocent or not. If Assange is bringing the U.S. down due to the instigation of other foreign sources, then he will be extradited to the U.S. and put on trial, because U.S. is interested in nailing other organizations that have participated in the leak.

In war, nations are leary of another due to their inner political agenda. We have witnessed the role of several countries during second world war and their bully tactics. History is repeating itself via cyber war and Assange is taking the heat for his role as a front man. The real Dr. Claw is hiding behind the scenes.

Siboni, you said.. ” realize that we bloggers tend to be emotional, …………….. Without digging further who, what, and why questions asked, it is dangerous to just form opinions. I am guilty of that too, but have learned to keep some reservations or taking an inductive approach. ”

Siboni, then you said from.. “Tomi, you are naive, to………..
What if one country or group of people are behind the exposure to blackmail U.S. into meeting their demands? ”

Which betrays the fact you have no background research at all into what you are talking about. What do you know about what was brewing and when? And why not? The information is out there if you are curious. Or would you rather just make outlandish judgements about a person we are deeply supportive of and concerned about over here. I guess that’s what you bible bangers do.. considering the fact that there are fewer Christians on this earth than Budists or Hindu’s, I’m sure you have done your research there as well. Why ask questions about why.. eh?
🙂

“Not our appeal. Nothin’ to do with us.”
(At best, an unnecessary admission.)

“Bail? Meh! Who cares?”
(Moving into Too Much Information Territory)

“OK so we never opposed bail even the first time. What of it?”
(Not guilty on grounds of insanity)

The essence of the first two quotes can be sourced from the Guardian’s immediate pre- and post- blogs about the appeal. Last one I think I’ve only heard from the Today show which doesn’t really count as a “source” to me except that they are otherwise misreporting the story in an anti-wikileaks way.

Re: my comments about judges above I should correct or amend them to say that, in my experience not all judges are bent. Assange appears to have gotten two who either aren’t or who are very adept at what I like to think of as judgespeak. Looking back at the original Magistrate’s decision, specifically the bail conditions, through the prism of the last 5 years of my life and a legal system that’s very similar to the UK’s, I think the onerous bail conditions may have been jdugespeak for:

“I’m recognizing the Prosecution’s concerns by imposing the most ludicrously severe bail conditions, given the circumstances. But take the hint that also means the chances of an appeal being successful and bail being refused are pretty much zip, (given there really isn’t a good reason for not granting bail with considerably less onerous conditions).”

The judiciary are a very strange and rarified bunch. Or at least, they can be when the issue of their independence is front and centre and in conflict with the political elite’s views. Enter the lawful, human rights compliant decision that imposes just enough onerous conditions on the defendant to keep the poltical elite happy. Or at least quiet. If Sweden hadn’t broken until after the appeal was heard, the outcome may have been very different.

But unfortunately they did and consequently were blaimed for failing to take the hint, and ordered to pay costs. I’m feeling so bad about the recent global flamings that have seen Sweden broken (hopefully only temporarily ) that I will happily support any claim she may make against the UK re: reimbursement of appeal costs.

Swedish prosecutors threw up their arms in despair and owned up to being subject to political influence well before the UK AFAICT. I say Britain, you owe Sweden. So play nice.

OTOH some of your judiciary are either still independent or too wary of a backlash to be caught out being blatantly biased. (Didn’t really surprise me that much with the HC judge but the magistrate was very impressive with hindsight.)

Swings and roundabouts. But defintiely no conspiracy. They might have all read the same outline, but we can also thank Sweden’s loss of composure for demonstrating that there is definitely no script here.

Well, except maybe for the recently released Evil Genius (and I really do mean that in the nicest possible way).

All joking aside, this whole thing is too good to be true. You could not make this stuff up.

Re: @Sidd Reader
The CPS’s “those who support him are supporting the cause, not the person” thing.
Riiiiiiight.
So they’re mutually exclusive huh?
If those putting up surety only support the “cause”, isn’t there a web site where they can do that. Hmmmmm….let me think wikileaks.ch (Note: Visa and Mastercard not accepted)?
OK so the rape has nothing to do with WikiLeaks but WikiLeaks has everything to do with the rape. Got it!

Groucho Marx would kill to be alive at this moment in time. I’m sure of it.

Disclaimer: My last 2 posts were mostly joking and may have lost something in the translation.

@Siboni

No I don’t think JA needs a copy of the Bible. I suspect he’s probably already familiar with it and has formed views in regard to it. If you really want to send him a copy, you’re in luck because his whereabouts are probably far better known now than they have been for a while.

I could suggest at least one alternate view of the Universe that could paint “WikiLeaks and everything” in such a positive light they could pass as the Second Coming as well as a dozen different views of them that sit between yours and mine.

But have I seen the evidence to believe any of them yet?

Nope.

As for his sexual behavior, sorry but I’ve indulged in similarly immoral (if that’s the way you want to see it) sexual behavior in my time (IIRC!) Sorry but I don’t have an issue with someone sleeping with two different people within a few days. Provided it’s based on mutual consent. And while we may disagree on other things, I suspect Ulla would not have an issue with that either.

Regardless of what Ulla thinks, Siboni, if you’re going to object to what consenting adults do in their own time, I suspect you’re destined to feel like an outsider on all but the most fundamental religious forums.

Note I don’t specify what religion.

But AFAIC you can believe what you like provided you don’t try to ram it down my throat (ie. force your views on me.)

When Aftergood attacked Wikileaks and Julian appeared to give some comments, but said, he had to waste time for doing this, I was of different opinion and still am. It was and still is necessary for Wikileaks to do some PR work and give answers to all those accusations and attacks.

But do they really have to be transparent and do we really need to know about each single penny?

There is a real threat to Wikileaks and espescially to JA. Why should they be transparent for their enemies? Who is asking for this? Those, who wonder, where their money went, or rather those, who accuse Assange for spending it in a luxury life?

We have learned a lot about that. If he had stayed in an expensive hotel, instead to sleep in Anna’s appartement, he would not have that trouble.
Letting Sophia pay his train ticket and breakfast instead to buy her a diamond ring from the donations also was a mistake.
Sleeping on sofas of friends and on the floor in an office at least was a good training for the jail time. Nobody sees the difference, because he often appears in public, as if he had no comb and mirror.

But seriously, I don’t think, they have to open their books for the public. The Wau Holland Foundation has to show it to the tax authorities anyway and they can publish, what they collected.

But those other sources are more interesting now, because the question is, what they keep away from Wikileaks. Postfinance, for example, say they have no valid address. They did not know, where London is, I guess. Maybe I should send them the one of Vaughan Smith now.

@Siboni: You should have sent him the bible last week, since he only was allowed to read the Daily Express, but maybe they would have torn it apart, as is said, they did with the Time magazine.
I guess, now he has a library available with books like 1984 and Brave New World and such things. I also bet, he prefers to catch up on the internet.

I was just catching up with the news as I was extremely busy. I read Micheal Moore’s funny letter to Sweden on his website. Moore is my favorite guy as he has a way of sending messages satirically.

I knew by instincts that Assange was released London time and I was not surprised this morning. I hope his mother, Christine Assange is delighted. I am surprised that Julia Gillard finally admitted that Julian is innocent. We made her confess to it, lol.

I was just catching up with the news as I was extremely busy. I read Micheal Moore’s funny letter to Sweden on his website. Moore is my favorite guy as he has a way of sending messages satirically.

I knew by instinct that Assange was released London time and I was not surprised this morning. I hope his mother, Christine Assange is delighted. I am surprised that Julia Gillard finally admitted that Julian is innocent. We made her confess to it, lol.

Thank you for your feedback. I am surprised that the bible is not a popular subject as compared to other academics and editorials. However, I would like you to know that during Noah’s time, he was warning of the flood, but none believed his word or rather mocked at him. Finally, the flood did arrive and they were perished. I, by the goodness of my heart would like to shine my light wherever I go rather than hide under a bushel. It is your prerogative to accept it or not. The second coming is definitive and the signs are leading it sooner than accepted. The judgment is real too and it is a pity that people have no concern for their souls.

Siboni, IMO it is your adherance to the belief that AA and SW were sexually violated against all reasonable assessment and your own far out theories about how the world works that are, yet again, degrading the quality of this blog.

IMO, Pressure to conform to standards of accounting and disclosure is not what Wikileaks needs right now. Wikileaks and Assange are in the middle of a war to “crack open the world” with information. The trigger has been pulled with the return key. There is no turning back.

Because of this defiance, JA has to become as emboldened as he is, (a necessary defense mechinism) which will bring contempt from some to say the least.

Please note that you are the only one here bringing religion in as the side topic. You do not know the personal beliefs I and others have here. I find it offensive that your personal beliefs as used as dogma to attack others. I was raised a Catholic fyi..

If it was Siboni, I don’t agree either. S/He seems pretty confused about what s/he believes. But hey, s/he is not Palin. But having an open mind and a big enough heart to at least try to engage with people with whom one might disagree, seems far more important than preaching to the converted.

Just testing if the quality of links is what this blog is all about or if I’ve been totally banned from posting.

So here’s a link to a post approved by the official doctrine repeating the official truth and being officially praised by a bunch of well-meaning men, all in agreement more or less, just like in this blog where this kind of quality posting made its start. Btw, maybe you might have a glance at the outcome of the quality thread How to Smear a Hero. In my country what’s going on there might be a hatecrime, but hey, it probably is not that for you.

The recent news kept me glued to the internet. I thought Julian Assange did pretty well with his interview on Today, with Matt Lauer. I am pretty sure Lauer and Couric are making up for the lost news or they are playing games.

I saw the Tabloid Sm.. version from Julian Assange this morning. However, I should say, that I am not confused with what is going on. This is a political world and you don’t know who is on your side and who is against. They are all chameleons.

Margie, I have been following Assange’s story for a long time and have supported Assange 100 percent under a different monicker on another blog, while the media was against Assange. All of a sudden the left media is supporting Assange, because of their personal conviction as they sat all those years succumbing to the orders from above to not relay the truth to the American people.
Margie, I don’t agree with Palin and her pseudo religious beliefs. She has been brought out to the open by the republican party, as the Republican right had lost a female or a male voice to counter the leftist party. I mean Palin was Limbaugh’s creation to block Hillary or Obama politically by creating an ultra conservative voice.

There is nothing wrong in discussing about morality. Since, I have heard enough of the rape allegations, I thought it is best to warn Assange to not be engaged in such acts as these acts in the end return to haunt us or our souls one way or the other. I was only interested in the greater cause of ending the hypocrisy of the U.S. and the AIPAC group as they are fiercely engaged in destroying humanity for their “means justifying the end.” By the way, my own experiences has allowed me to hold on to the word of God in times of danger. Psalm 91 being my favorite.

I am quite surprised that AA has reported to the Swedish authorities her version of what happened that night with Assange when her blogs clearly indicate her revenge for the male figures is beyond me. This has created a sensation and the opposition party is thriving on this news to undermine Assange’s credibillity despite their consensual acts.

What stuns me most is that Ana Ardin or Belardin has totally destroyed her credibility by doing the act with Assange and then going to Palestine pretending like she is part of their culture trying to appease both Muslims and Jews. Give me a break, Ardin! This is your pathetic Muslim scarf you are wearing to deceive them too as you did to Assange. Your Christian slogan is just a venom in your mouth that you are spreading your legs to any stranger calls you a slut too.

Ardin’s connivance by joining Wikileak under the pretext of “Christian Brotherhood Movement” to lure Assange and then discard him or trash him in front of the world by accusation of rape or misconception of any actions to warrant a rape might have gone sour in Sweden. Or if it is still alive, it might be the doing of her attorney to save face in front of the world.

Ardin is a coward. She has totally lost control of Assange as he left Sweden. As long as Assange is in Sweden, she can control him via her affiliated party members. Her desperation to extradite Assange to Sweden may not work after all. So, Ardin has painted her accusations detailing the bedroom scene.

Why did the poor Ardin left to Palestine? To bully the Muslims in the name of Christian Brotherhood Movement to bring peace between Israel and the Muslims? There is no peace and peace will come in Israel or Palestine at the second coming. Ardin is wasting her time wearing her scarf to deceive the Muslim people, while all along she is a traitor trying to infiltrate Islamic community. Someone should warn the Palestinians that she is a danger wherever she goes. It is better for Ny to arrest Ardin on all false charges and keep her locked up in Sweden so she does not create similar tactics in Palestine.

Wilen and Ardin did a great job of running around a stranger while he was only looking for sex and dumped both of them. So, who was the real rapist, here? The women, I suppose!

So much for my blunt remarks. I am trying to wake this two women up so that they don’t shame other women to be dull minded in front of the world. Sweden is so engrossed in the sex culture that they have forgotten the moral issues. How about Ny and her attorney start rehabilitating these women in the future.

http://prataomdet.se/in-english/
Now we have this coming out in English. Huff post today has an article that Carl Rove might be behind intensifying the smear campaign and pushing for charges.

But I would like to ask Ardin and Widen .. if a creepy man like Carl Rove (or any other gross example of what would be an unattractive male) tried what Julian did with them, wouldn’t anger be the most immediate response, as a result of their honest revulsion?

There is no mistaking when a woman wants nothing to do with a man.. Half asleep or not. Anger and NO! are clear signals to stop. Not coy feelings of abandonment when he gets up to use his computer……… Give me a break….

I read the article on Rove too who has destroyed many politicians by exposing their closet lives. I believe many politicians in the U.S. are heterosexuals, but there is a culture in Washington that has leaned toward gay culture and is popular. Many politicians have conformed to this culture in order to be accepted or to be promoted.

Rove and party have taken advantage of their lifestyle that during the time of election, he has trashed them to create a vacuum within the party. Rove is very dangerous!

I wish that Rove sincerely reported the scandal of G. W. Bush having an affair with Condileeza Rice that even Laura Bush was planning to divorce him. What about Rove and Jeff Gannon Gukert? Is there a connection? I wonder why his wife divorced him?

The many brothels in New York brought the politicians down due to sexual scandals. These brothels are considered partly a spy network where they pass info to the lady in waiting and then, trash them like dirt. Blackmail is the key word. Gov. Spitzberg is an example of their dirty tricks.

Rove, Limbaugh, Ken Star and party created similar havoc for Pres. Clinton in the white house. I think that Lewinsky was planted to trap Clinton as he was careless. The blame should be carried by both parties.

__
Recent news that Guardian is exposing Assange details to the public. However, according to Assange that he spent 5 nights with Anna Ardin. I am confused why did she allow him to spend the rest of the days with her if he was violent or she was aggravated by his behavior?
Also, Ms. Villain (sarcasm) was dating her American boyfriend during this time period and why did she jump in the bed with Assange? It is all a mystery!

Finally, according to the latest report, one of the journalists has criticized Assange for taking off with his English girlfriend and having an affair with her. If Assange has behaved accordingly, then I must say that there is something very serious going on with Assange. I can make an assessment that Assange suffers from psycho-social problem and it can get very dangerous if one confronts his behavior. Assange needs therapy, because somewhere in his life he had a psyche breakdown from the neglect of his father and the environment that he was brought up in by his mother. I do feel sorry for Assange, because he is intelligent and at the same time he needs help. He is around the wrong crowd who is bringing him down.
This kind of personalities have serial affairs as they cannot trust anybody due to the early traumatization within the early nurture and nature stage.

I followed through the recent news and was surprised that Moore is flip flopping on his earlier stand concerning the brash attack from the Sweden Police or Prosecutors.

I think Assange is in denial that these women were bamboozled at the police station. The question is why did these women in the first place enter the police station? Moreover, Assange is in denial or in shock, because he had always assumed that women were kind (according to his interview reports), generous, hospitable, and kept his relationship secret and now to find out that these women were different only raises his suspicion perhaps the govt. is involved in bringing wikileak or himself down. Is it suffice to say that he might have had a relationship with the Icelandic Parliament woman (Jons Dottir) too? Assange is getting favors from them in return for sex. He believes that sex is a monetary exchange!

I think most spies or individuals use sex to either get information or to provide some sort of allegiance to their relationship that they would carry out his agendas and remain faithful. If Assange stayed with Miss A for a long time, I wonder what was the motive? Was AA afraid of leaking the actual conversation between Assange and herself to the police and simply concentrated on the sexual scenarios to divert the attention? We do not have all the answers and therefore, cannot blame Assange fully here. His intentions might go against the norms of the society and therefore will be branded as a sexual predator.

Finally, Catholics do not believe in condoms and it is improper to wear due to the unholy intentions. The only concern I have is most females are emotional in that they want to feel victimized and blame it entirely on the man. I am not suggesting that there are no real rape cases. Of course, there are and that needs legitimate scrutiny. I have hard time digesting the fact that if a woman knows that she is encountering a stranger, then she has to expect what come may. I would partially blame the woman, because of her initiatives in luring the man. Men have a different perception with regards to sex than women. My advice “do not have intimacy with a stranger.”
Mind you, groupies will always be looked down upon and men do not respect them to follow every little details of restrictions.

It seems I am the only one writing my commentary on Julian Assange saga.

Julian Assange video on MSNBC is a must see rebuttal on the differences between the journalists’ right to publish terrorism of the govt. and the terrorists activities of the U.S. govt. around the world. I think the role of terrorism must be defined accurately and reinforced every time in order to remind the American Fox News and others.

Assange called Palin rightfully, an idiot, because she has no clue of what she believes in. She is a follower and not a leader in my view. I cannot imagine that they are planning to nominate her as a republican presidential candidate.

Biden is another follower and not a leader. He spews nonsense just to survive in the political world.

Asked by the BBC’s John Humphrys why he would not return to Sweden to deal with the allegations, Assange said: “If they want to charge me, they can charge me. They have decided not to charge me.”

If we focus on Assange’s political actions to expose the secret or terrorism acts of the U.S. govt. or for that matter Israeli actions, we might have to garner support for him 100 percent. There is not going to be any further discussion about the rape allegations. It diminishes the cause and effect of the leaked documents.

On the other hand, the sexual attack on Assange has many facades if we think critically. Assange is confident that Sweden has decided not to charge him indicates that there is no substantive evidence to charge him.

The possibilities might be:

l. This entire innuendo of sexual rape or whatever allegations were deliberately created so Assange can remain in Sweden so he can continue with his work without any interruptions. It is possible, because Sweden took no effort in interrogation process while Assange was in Sweden.

2. Assange was allowed freely to travel to the U.K, because in U.K, there are different laws. By and large, U.S could extradite Assange from Sweden. By being in U.K., U.S. has to fight U.K as well as Sweden to authorize extradition. So, here we may have a puzzling nature of the law as both countries may juggle to meet the demands of U.S.

This operation might go in favor of Assange. He might gain more time to edit the documents.

If my analysis is right, then Ardin and Willen has supported Assange secretly and knowingly. This is just a speculation. Julian Assange is not afraid to take the risk of sexual allegation in order to meet his goals that demands immediate attention from the world population.

Finally, Assange has stated to Al Jazeera that he is going to reveal Israeli documents soon. I am not sure how he is going to succeed as Mossad is extremely dangerous and will get Assange one way or the other. Again, I may have to wait for further events. Politics stinks as usual!

Julian looks affected, maybe just tired, on his last few interviews (links from http://twitter.com/wikileaks). Frankly too slow to make his point, too much circling around, too verbose for the average person to listen carefully, no punch.

Heard him communicate much more effectively in the past.

One point struck me as critical — regarding the irony of his own case getting leaked to the public. There is such a simple answer. Privacy is a human right, and should be respected for individual persons. Stressing the word human. Whereas privacy for public institutions or corporations are obtrusive pipe dreams, synthetic extrapolations, perversions of a noble idea.

Unfortunately, the “legal person” or “entity” concept, convenient as it was, has been taken to absurdity! We need as a global society to clearly differentiate reality (biological human person) from our collective fictions (legal person, entity, association, government). We need to cap down the legal person concept, impose clear limits and constraints on its sprawling powers. It’s critical we start to clearly differentiate between rights for individual humans, and rights for any other entities.

You articulated your point very well with regards to the rights of an individual versus the role and the accountability of the government, because govt. exists because of taxpayer dollars. It seems the media is running out of stories and when they find scandals, they chew on it like the dog not letting the bone out of sight.

However, wishing all of you a wonderful Christmas and the joys of the holidays. I hope they are not drowning him with Red Martinis (my favorite).

Let’s be honest here. The Press eventually is to blame for hiring Assange to run the stories against U.S role in the war.
The press is backed up by the Israeli Zionist regime.

Mr. Elseberg should come clean and express his views against the war once again rather than blame it on Bradly Manning and Assange.

About Assange, the recent stories point out that Assange was a drag queen in Australia (Damien Zone) and a gay. So the argument if he was a gay, how could he have assaulted the women in Sweden unless he is bisexual.

Assange might do a big leak on those who visited the gay night club in Australia. The culture war is rampant and is bringing the political world down.

hi all, Im off topic with this question but I find alot of the comments on this site very informative and more based in fact than other sites so I would like to ask your opinion.

I’ve been having a discussion with someone about if Julian Assange has been formally charged with sex crimes in Sweden. I think he hasnt but I have difficulties backing this claim. I might be wrong but…

I cant find any formal document that states that he has been formally charged.

And Glenn Greenwald keeps stating in interviews that Assange hasnt been formally charged by the Sweeds. He is an oracle of legal knowledge and always has a very good analysis about the topics he talks about.

In my perception there is a difference between being requested for questioning about charges and actually being formally charged.

we dicussed this here, too. Take a look at the post about December 11.
On that day, the prosecutor still had the statement on the website, that they only wanted to question Assange as a part of the investigation.

Right today Die Zeit published an article about this case, comparing Swedish law to other countries. They also state:

Translation:
“Whereas a not insignifant detail is often overlooked. So far no charges haved been levied against Assange. The competent prosecutor Marianne Ny wants to interrogate him first in Sweden, and then decide about possible further legal action.”

I completely missed the info before I posted. Think I was suffering from brainfrog bec of an information overload after reading all the ´How to smear a hero´ posts. 🙂

I think I found something that might be contributing to the spread of disinformation that Assange has been charged. Most of the statements that have been made by Marianne Ny, have been to Swedish newspapers. When searching on the internet I tried to go to primary sources, so the swedish newspapers. I dont speak Swedish, like most people, so I used the google app to translate the pages. Im dutch but I always let it translate into english bec translations to dutch are shitty for sure and the english ones are more accuretly translated most of the time.

– I can not comment on it further than he has been charged in his absence since the end of September”.

It states charged but translated correctly from swedish it should have said arrested. I have a friend who speaks a bit swedish so I asked him to translate it.

First I thought it was just a stupid little thing but now Im wondering how many people, normal and journalists, use the translate app to translate these articles and subsequently use the false translations with charged.

Remember when Assange’s lawyer Stephens was all over the media saying that Assange wasn’t wanted for rape but for something called ”sex by surprise”, which wasn’t really a crime, not a serious one anyway. Well, that turned out a lie. Lawyer Stephens said at the time that he had received this info from his ”Swedish co-counsel”. Who is this Swedish co-counsel who gives outright lies to another who is silly and ignorant to believe them?

Did he mean Björn Hurtig with that? But then I’ve never seen and couldn’t find any interview of Hurtig saying anything about ”surprise sex”, or ”överraskningssex”. If Hurtig wasn’t behind this stupid idea, who was behind it? Via Google the trails led to the Swedish forum site called Flashback, familiar to all who were here since the beginning of the thread How to smear a hero. That’s where they talked about ”överraskningssex” since 21st of August.

Turns out ”överraskningssex” is a translated from English slangword. Swedes translated ”överraskningssex” from English slang ”surprise sex”. Seems to me a pretty straightforward translation. And guess what surprise sex means in English. It means rape.

You can look it up at urbandictionary. I did.

So this ”Swedish co-counsel”, whoever he is, has got a very twisted view on women and sexual issues or, he is deliberately feeding others with bullshit. Anyway, the interesting thing is, that not Assange’s lawyer or other lawyers bothered to check this info and neither did any of the journalists writing about it. Nobody bothered to check anything. I’m also surprised that there aren’t any questions anywhere about this source that is so mysteriously called ”my Swedish co-counsel”.

Is Flashback.org behind this ”surprise sex” info? They certainly use that kind of language over there.

By the way, did you ever happen to google Flashback and read what kind of a forum it is? One Swedish leftist site (motkraft) says it’s ”the biggest spreader of the Swedish nazipropaganda on the internet”. According to Motkraft ”when the nazi structures and networks weaken and fall apart, so the internet has now become a more significant for the remaining nazi groups. The internet has become an easy way to small isolated nazi cults to spread their message and build a dream world where they try to pretend that they are big, powerful and well-organized.”

Indeed it is odd, that Stephens thought this was a judicial term. I guess, the Babylonion confusion struck again.

In March 2009 Aftonbladet had an article about a Swedish facebook group, that used a very cynical language. There they said, that rape was a too negative word and it should be called “överraskningssex”. That phrase can now be found on many Swedish sites of people, who like politically incorrect humour.
On another site a woman commented on an article that said, Sweden needs more immigrants in a similar cynical way: >>Great, more “överraskningssex” for me!<<
But I also found it used vice versa, when someone said, you can call rape "överraskningssex", but it still is, what it is.

Maybe the person from Sweden, who informed Stephens used that cynism, too, and Stephens did not understand that it was black humour.

But since the Guardian has published the accusations, it is not so important anymore. We now have the concrete accusations and don't need to wonder, what that word means.

I don't know anything about the Swedish forum and I don't see any reason to think, they are "behind" anything. Stephens surely talked to the Swedish lawyers or at least with their employers and not with some people, who write in forums.
The nazi reference does not make any sense at all to me. Wikileaks surely does not have too many fans in that camp.

Flashback forum was in the beginning the source of most of the information in the thread How to smear a hero. In the Flashback forum they really hated the two women who had reported Assange. They were the ones who dug all that ”incriminating” info about Anna’s tweets, blogs and personal information. Many posters in Flashback really hated those ”whores” as they called them and wanted to rape or kill them. That sentiment from the Flashback.org was brought to us in the How to smear a hero comments and some people were fine with it.

The Swedish site Flashback is illegal in Sweden and that’s why it operates from the UK. According to wikipedia ”The forum has been investigated by the Swedish police on numerous occasions and is under constant surveillance by the Swedish Security Service due to its members’ abundant discussions about drug use, child pornography, race science, bestiality and other controversial subjects. Other controversies include sexual harassment of famous individuals, forced disconnection from its internet service provider, hosting of nazi sites, sabotage of votes in TV shows, spreading of internal passwords of the SSU and connections to hacking of the CIA site in 1996.”

One special feature in Flashback forum is their open hate speech against minority groups: immigrants, moslems, women (especially feminists) etc. Flashback forum is also a place where you can joke about children who’ve been murdered or raped, at least if those children were of color or girls. There are people who think that those kinds of ”jokes” are in fact mocking, insult and hate speech. But Flashback forum can operate at least in the UK because of ”free speech”. And so freedom of speech is used to insult a 10-year-old black kid who was murdered or a 14-year-old girl who was raped, and it is also used to collect personal info of Swedish anti-fascists making them public for anyone to use how they deem fit. A lot of people there simply hate the anti-fascists. Gee, I wonder why that is – could it be that fascists hate anti-fascists, just like them anti-feminists hate feminists, etc.

A site that is very open to nazis has been used as a credible source of information since the beginning of the Assange rape case in August. That info has been successfully translated into English and distributed all over internet, reaching also mainstream media. Wikileaks supporters have used the info collected in Flashback and I suspect Mr Assange with his team of lawyers has used it as well.

Team supporting Assange in Swedish rape case has been under suspicion also elsewhere. The journalist who claimed that Ms Ardin was a CIA honey trap has been labeled ”a Holocaust denier”. That journalist is also a Wikileaks employee, which has raised suspicion in the objectivity of the Cable leaks. Meaning, if a person with very fixed political views is in charge of selecting and distributing what info will be public from the Diplomatic Cables, there might be a problem for Wikileaks and its credibility. Would you let a nazi or a racist or a jew hater select what info can be public from the Diplomatic Cables? Would you be ok with it?

I was referring to Israel Shamir who wrote the article claiming Ms Ardin had ties to CIA. Remember that? Mr Assange was painted as Captain Neo or Jesus Christ, smeared by a campaign by Judases. Remember the article that you all agreed with, the one you welcomed with joy.

Israel Shamir is a well-known nazi, racist and jew hater. He was also in charge of handling the wikileaks cables material in Russia and has been either employed by Wikileaks or “working with” Wikileaks. Anyway, you are apparently quite happy to support a nazi like him and an organization employing nazis like him. Oh well…

And your enemies are, to make things clear, Sweden, feminists, social democrats and western rape laws, got it. Now let’s see…

What does this all tell about Wikileaks supporters or the organization itself? I don’t think many Europeans find it funny that there’s a nazi connection in Wikileaks and we’re supposed to trust the material edited by these people.

Do click the links there too. And btw, this guy is a good friend with both KKK’s David Duke and a sentenced holocaust denier David Irving, and he’s some kind of a hero among the nationalist racists. You can just google and the evidence is there, it has been for years.

Whatever you try to say. The method of Wikileaks does not deliver any chance to change the original data, since they publish the raw data.
They agreed to edit out names and sensitive informations, but that does not change the fact, that everybody can read the original. Meanwhile there are hundreds, if not thousands of mirrors.

Lukashenko can read the cables in the internet. But he cannot change them.

Of course, dictators will try to hinder their people to read the cables. Even the US tries. But it is impossible.

It does not matter, who Shamir is and what he supports. The data speaks for itself.

howdy — just a heads up on two items … Cryptome has what they say are I guess “screen shots” from Daniel Donscheit-Berg’s book which on a quick reading appear to confirm some of the more disturbing rumors of last August / September … that the “WL Insiders” basically stole the unpublished archive, disabled and (I guess took with them) the submission engine, etc.

I remain confused why thiis “stealing” of materials/leaks entrusted to Wikileaks was not a greater ethical issue wrt the Guardian and the others who were “given” a “stolen” copy of, say, the Embassy Cables. They seem to believe they are “free” to do with it as they please, although the leaker designated WL as guardian, as far as I can tell, and with understandings wrt publishing and distributing to maximal effect as agreed upon (including harm minimization)…

Also Greg Mitchell has the following:
7:45 One of my reporter friends at Aftenposten, Norway, paper that has been posting cables for the past six weeks, tells me, “Daniel Domscheit-Berg claims in his Wikileaks book that Aftenposten paid for access to Cablegate. That is a lie. It was free.”

I used to fear that Domscheit Berg was being “used” by people who had convinced him that “only you” can save Wikileaks from the ravages of l’enfant terrible Julian … as the months tick by with the “small potatoes” OpenLeaks in barely alpha trials and with various still largely anonymous “Wikileaks insiders” leaking / handing out “purloined” copies of the Embassy cables. … I don’t know what to think except that as they seek to destroy Wikileak’s reputation and credibility as a “secure” operation, they are also seriously undermining their own future effectiveness.

I have wondered who the two “accusers” may have consulted with during that week before deciding to “teach Julian a lesson” … they may have unwittingly received counsel from “Wikileak supporters” who were part of the dissident team who believed that removing Assange from the helm (at least temporarily) was necessary to “save Wikileaks”

Oh, well — looks like there’s a shitstorm coming if anyone actually cares … as far as I can find, Wau Holland failed to meet their 12/31/2010 deadline for financial statement but no one seems to have noticed (even Cryptome).

the most interesting segment (apparently referring to the submission engine)

Julian never seems to have taken sufficient interest in this task or given him any support. He just kept on complaining that the architect and I had destroyed everything. I don’t know exactly why, as of the end of 2010, three months after our departure, the system is still not really back up on its feet. It shows that the current team is overtaxed and perhaps, to some extent at least, just not up to the job. It also shows how unsecure[sic] the system is. It has become a security risk for everyone involved. The architect did not merely remove the part of the new platform that he had programmed and installed. He and I also ensured it was safe, stored away in a neutral, secure location.
Children shouldn’t play with guns. That was our argument for removing the submission platform from Julian’s control.

The architect, in particular, would have had moral qualms about leaving it in Julian’s hands. We did not take this step to damage Julian personally. We were not motivated by revenge. And we did not want to get our own hands on the material, or divert it to OpenLeaks. We just decided to take away these dangerous toys so that Julian could not do harm to anyone else. We will only return the material to Julian if and when he can prove that he can store the material securely and handle it carefully and responsibly.

This is the first time that we’ve told anyone about this. We were afraid that doing so could lose us public sympathy, and perhaps that will be the result now. But I stand by this decision absolutely. We were and are primarily bound to our duty vis-à-vis our sources’ security.

Julian will no doubt claim that we stole the material from him, so let me repeat this once again: We have absolutely no intention of publishing the material ourselves, even though some people keep on advising us to do just that, and even though it might be in the interests of the sources. I would never open myself up to the accusation that I had taken something that belonged to Julian Assange.

There is far too much personal animus on display and some vague/dodgy use of words here (deliberate or just sloppy) .

Again, I feel Domsheit-Berg is insensitive or oblivious to how bad — in many ways — this make HIM look … imho, particularly to any would-be leakers … but I suspect also his history of preemptory )actions would make him a less and less desirable future partner for almost anyone … poorly calculated, poorly executed … disappointing

I remain baffled as to exactly why Domscheit-Berg EVER EVER EVER got involved with Wikileaks … except perhaps as some white-gloved, ivory tower, kool kidz klub he wanted to be “associated” with ….

I gather he has been — for real (I think) — a part of the CCC for some duration …

I continue to think that stuck in Germany, in the shadows, insufficiently “appreciated” and “listened to” … folks got disgruntled in the old fashioned way … quite possibly egged on … by Domscheit-Berg, someone else, don’t know.

I worked in a department that underwent “regieme change” … the “newly annointed” lasted a bit less than 2 years (his predecessor had been in his 14th year as director when ousted) … It was educational to watch the new guy’s many supporters recognize that “handsome is as handsome does” … in this case, not much and not well.

Apparently DD-B wanted to sit on the leaks until it was “safe” or something

Four Corners has also discovered a fierce debate within WikiLeaks over whether it was in Manning’s best interest to publish the cables.

As a former WikiLeaks insider Daniel Domscheit-Berg explains.

DANIEL DOMSCHEIT-BERG: If the cables had not been published, there would have been no proof that anyone had given the material to a different entity.

So from my perspective, whatever would’ve, should’ve happened with these cables, for the sake of Bradley Manning, would’ve been to just keep them back as long as possible until you find out what is happening with him before you publish them.

Because, I mean, that is just feeding allegations of spreading material to other entities and that might mean new charges that have not come up at this point in time.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Did Julian Assange agree with you?

DANIEL DOMSCHEIT-BERG: Obviously not.

EMILY BOURKE: For his part Julian Assange maintains WikiLeaks does not know the identity of its sources.

Domscheit Berg started out publically “worried” about the names in the Afghan logs, then concerned about the redactions in the Iraq War Diary, then more recently wrt “protecting anonymity of source” and now reportedly worried that publishing the materials will result in more charged against Manning …

He’s really “all over the place” … when he talks about Assange somehow taking Wikileaks somewhere different from the “original vision” … again, I’m not sure Daniel knows that that is or was …